Is there any truth to this. there were no controlled demolitions

[madokie]

first time I have seen this and it makes me wonder. so many question so little honest answers.

http://www.911revisited.com

Firefighters reported multiple explosions before the collapse, including explosions in the basement. They reported only isolated pockets of fire when they reached the impact zone of one of the planes. It is essential for you to witness there testimonials to understand what you have not been told.

The Bush Administration contends that fire made the building collapse, and that there were no controlled demolitions. Marvin Bush and his cousin Wirt Walker were the principal executives at a Kuwaiti backed security company called Securacom. This is the company that ran security at the WTC, and at the airports where all the planes took off.

The controlled demolition of a building takes weeks to prepare. I believe the controlled demolitions could not have been done without the knowledge and consent of Securacom.

[cali]

1. To the dungeon with you

These conspiracy theories should be put in the 9/11 forum.

[mirandapriestly]

24. Yes, we don't want anyone getting any "ideas".

like: "Gee without 9-11 NONE of the stuff anyone on DU is talking about and totally powerless to do anything about, such as the current escalation in the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq, and the infringement on out rights and constitution would have been possible without 9-11". So GOD FORBID we should speculate as to what might have really happened, despite the fact that there has been no unbiased, independent investigations; free of conflicts of interest, and that there has been no trial and conviction related to anyone involved (Moussaoui was not involved in 9-11) or any serious attempt to find those people. Nor has anyone in our government been held accountable for their documented failure to protect our country on 9-11 . In fact many of these same people have been promoted. So, yes, by all means, keep any "nutty" conspiracy theories out of plain site. We don't want anyone to feel "uncomfortable".

[EFerrari]

2. Have you seen "Loose Change"? It shows you frame by frame

the towers coming down.

[madokie]

3. No I haven't, I am not really a conspiracy theorist

but I have had questions concerning many facets of this tragedy. The marvin bush connection etc. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

6. I see that there's a whole thread in this forum about different

videos. I haven't spent much time on 9/11 and I don't believe the official story. Too many coincidences, such as the one you point out.

There is a post on that thread that lists several different videos that seem to be available for downloading.

[madokie]

11. due to the fact this cabal has lied to me at every turn I question

anything official. I will watch each of these at a later time, I feel I owe myself that now.

[HamdenRice]

16. Did you know that Mohammed Atta's financier was in DC on 9/11?

Some of us are not as interested in the difficult to prove physical evidence claims (like controlled demolition) and more interested in the well documented political, intelligence and financial ties.

Did you know this: The person who funded Mohammed Atta's flight training was the head of Pakistan's intelligence service (the ISI), Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. He wired $100,000 to Atta through a famous ISI operative named Saeed Sheikh. So, number one, contrary to the 9/11 Commission Report, Pakistan and not just Afghanistan, was a state sponsor of the 9/11 attacks.

Gen. Ahmad, the financier of the 9/11 attacks flew to Washington DC just a few days before 9/11. He met with top officials of the Pentagon, CIA, State Department and National Security Council.

On the morning of 9/11, as the planes were crashing into the towers, he was having breakfast with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss and Sen. Bob Graham. Later they told the press that they were discussing terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. Goss, himself a former famous CIA officer (that's the accomplishment he ran on as a Florida Congressman) would be named CIA chief after the intelligence reorganization.

Hmmmmm. The financier of Mohammed Atta was meeting in DC on 9/11 to discuss terrorism with the leadership of the defense and intelligence establishment and future CIA chief. Those must have been very interesting conversations.

It's just one damned coincidence after another, isn't it?

[madokie]

17. Yes it is, too many if you ask me.

I agree, so many seems to point straight at the BFEE, enough to make me worry.

[Poppyseedman]

4. This subject just proves a point

people will believe anything if it fits into their predispositions.

If Kerry was in office, almost none of this crap would see the light of day, yet you have supposings intelligent people buying into it because of their hatred of the chimp

[madokie]

7. so in other words it is better to blindly go along

I am not a conspiracy theorist but there are many unexplained supposed facts to just piss it off. Not wanting to get into an extended exchange concerning this either. just posted for 'Just in Case.'

[EFerrari]

9. Here's the link to that list of videos in case you want to check them out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=100427&mesg_id=100483

[madokie]

12. Thanks

[EFerrari]

8. What crap are you referiing to? madokie raised a question.

I thought questions were good things. :)

[Generarth]

10. It would have been Gore in office not Kerry

If Florida hadn't have been stolen.

And if Gore was President, 9/11 would not have happenned. (yet - naturally it would still been on the agenda) Quite simply Gore would not have okayed this operation. Bush obviously did.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

15. I agree! If only!

:patriot:A question to ask republicans: What if Clinton's or Gore's relatives were the principal executives' at a Kuwaiti backed security company called Securacom, the company that ran security at the WTC, and at the airports where all the planes took off.
:pals:

[petgoat]

51. A Colorado law professor recently wrote a column on that very

question in the Rocky Mountain News.

After some slightly snarky comments about 911 truthists, he said:

"Indeed, the most noteworthy aspect of the 9/11 Truth movement is its almost complete invisibility in the mainstream media....

"Suppose that on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Gore had been president. Suppose further that Saddam Hussein had plotted to kill Gore's father. And suppose that from the first days of the Gore administration, plans had been drawn up to invade Iraq. My guess is that, within a few months, some of the less obviously crazy 9/11 Truth types would have found a forum for their theories on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. The more unhinged advocates would start popping up on Fox News specials with titles such as 9/11: What Really Happened?

"In the blogosphere, academics like Glenn Reynolds would post chin-scratching ruminations, demanding a "truly independent investigation of these troubling charges," which would in turn inspire demagogues of the Michelle Malkin variety to screech nonstop about "the biggest cover-up in American history."

"All this would bully journalists into writing "balanced" stories about even the nuttiest allegations, in an attempt to counter right-wing charges regarding how "liberal media bias" was keeping such allegations from getting the serious attention they deserved. And eventually 38 percent of the public would believe Al Gore blew up the World Trade Center. How's that for a conspiracy theory?"


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/columnist/0,1299,DRMN_86_105,00.html

[Generarth]

64. Impossible to imagine.

Because the plan was always a right wing one. The conspirators are right wing, the Republicans are right wing, the media is right wing. The GWB administration wasn't only the natural home for 9/11 it was the only home.

But I can see the reasons for trying to frame it that way.

Petgoat, do you know any left forums where 9/11 is discussed?

[MadHound]

13. Yep, just like people will believe that not one, not two, but three

Steel structures defied all odds and collapsed due to fire, straight down into their own footprint. They will hang onto these Big Lies, despite all evidence to the contrary, like the fact that the highest temperature the fires could have reached was 900 F, while the weakening point for structural steel is 1100 F. They will hold these notions close, despite all the questions and all the evidence that disproves their precious pre-conceptions.

Amazing isn't it:eyes:

[EFerrari]

14. You know, I haven't spent much time thinking about 9/11

but someone gave me the link to Loose Change and I watched it three times. During the part where he shows those flashes in those buildings, my blood ran cold and that doesn't happen very often. lol

[MadHound]

18. Back on 9/11, despite all the horror and confusion

I kept getting this nagging feeling as I watched the towers fall, time and again on replays. About halfway through the morning I came to the conclusion that we were watching the Big Lie unfold before us, and nothing that I've read, seen or heard since then has come close to convincing me otherwise.

It was all to neat and packaged, all too much a blatant disregard for the laws of physics. But sadly, too many people have been baffled by the bullshit, too many people lack the basic knowledge to question what they see, and too many people have been blinded by grief, rage and fear to dare question the official story of that day.

I should watch Loose Change, if for no other reason than to see how much it confirms my own research and study of the matter.

[EFerrari]

28. On 9/11, I was terrified but not of al Qaida or terrorism.

I was first and immediately terrified that the Cabal was in office. No lie.

I wasn't even politically active then because I take care of a family member and try to squeeze work in between.

But I knew that whatever had happened, we were not in good hands. It didn't occur to me immediately that those hands were bad hands. But I knew that we were all on our own in a profound way that had never, as an American citizen, ever occurred to me before that moment.

Maybe that's the civilian view of 9/11 -- because other than the most glaring inconsistencies and, other than watching the so called 9/11 Commission f*ck us three ways to Sunday, I don't spend any time on this.

I just assume that those in power don't care if we drown or are blown to bits here or there and try to make whatever small difference I can, starting with our "elections".

That puts me on all the right lists.

:)

[sabbat hunter]

20. big lie

one of the big lies is that the buildings collapsed into their own footprints. they didnt do that at all. go look at the damage to the surrounding buildings again.

[MadHound]

21. LOL, yes, there was damage done to the surrounding buildings

Debris will spread on the way down. But the vast majority of the debris from the towers went pretty much straight down, in their own footprints. It normally takes many specially placed charges to bring down a building in such a nice, neat manner. Yet we're supposed to believe that three seperate buildings, damaged in very distinct, seperate ways somehow managed to go straight down? Puhleeze friend, don't feed me shit and try to convince me it's caviar.

Go back and look for yourself. The only variation of either tower going straight down was when the South tower collapsed. The top, the antenna veered off of true a few degrees right at the beginning of the collapse, but immediately corrected itself. Hell, even the most die hard coincidence theorist has agreed that the towers went straight down.

So, in all your wisdom, tell me, how can steel weaken and collapse when the maximum temperature of the fires didn't even reach the temperature that structural steel weakens at? Explain to me why on that day, three structural steel towers made history by collapsing due to fire, when no other structural steel building had ever done so before in the history of the world? Tell me, where were the fighter jets that were mandated to be in the air by a standing order that had been in use since the late sixties? Tell me how a fire that the firemen on the scene said was controlable was able to get out of control and collapse both towers? Believe me, I'd love an answer, because I haven't found a satisfactory one yet.

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. Puhleeze friend

Going a little heavy on the "caviar" I see.

Go back and look for yourself. WTC 1&2 was not "nice and neat" controled demolitions. Far From it. Their collapse was vastly different from that of WTC7 which did fall in the manner seen in CD.

Hell, even the most die hard coincidence theorist has agreed that the towers went straight down. Not quite straight down, but close. It it is called structural dynamics, not coincidence.

how can steel weaken and collapse when the maximum temperature of the fires didn't even reach the temperature that structural steel weakens at? The key is not fire temp but energy release rate over time.

Want answers...?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

[petgoat]

23. "go look at the damage"

Yeah, they energetically ejected debris, including a lot of perimeter column
"trees," some of which flew 400 feet across West Street to the WFC. But
aside from the energetically ejected dust and debris, they pretty much fell
in their footprints.

[mirandapriestly]

25. What's amazing is

how many DUers do not believe the official story and yet we are not allowed to discuss it in the open .

[BuddyYoung]

27. Amen, and that's all I can say about that, but it is rather peculiar. nt

nt

[elias7]

19. No, hatred of the chimp comes from being forcefed bullsh*t for years

Truly intelligent people don't buy into anything. What "facts" are you buying into? My predisposition is to be empirical, and if someone is trying to sell me a bill of goods that doesn't add up, I ain't buying it. No idea so sacred as to cling to it out of false necessity. The question becomes, can a supposedly intelligent person overcome their emotional attachment to one paradigm for one that is in diametric opposition to it?

[petgoat]

22. If Kerry was in office, the suppression and destruction of evidence

and the poor quality of the official investigations would be just as glaring
as they are under Bush's administration. We want answers to the questions
the widows posed, most of which were never answered. There's nothing partisan
about that.

[LARED]

31. Those that hang out in the 9/11 dungeon have discussed

the notion of Confirmation Bias http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

I believe it explain quite nicely the remarkable level of willful ignorance seen down here.

[mrgerbik]

32. why

doesn't this pertain to OCT?
- you focus on this absurd idea that fires can weaken strong, very redundant steel supports and cross beams to the point of "taffy" only after 50 min of a weak fire
- then you contest that the weight of the top half of the tower, had so much kinetic energy - that it smashed down through some 80+ storeys of a building. Only leaving a pile of broken beams and columns and completely pulverized concrete. Or wait, the floors "pancaked" down on each other - violently ejecting clouds of huge debris in every direction... no, wait sorry... it was a zipper then a pancake ...err... or did the steel melt then collapse ... ya the core columns gave way thats the one - I've heard so many "official" explanations on how the buildings collapsed that I tend to get them all mixed up. It's absurd how those people pushing these themes don't look at their own ideas and laugh.
- Not to mention the countless improbabilities before and after
- the blatant disregard of the countless connections the people involved had (and have) with organizations and persons that show prior knowledge and which profited hugely - which would, under any normal investigation, call for an inditement of these said people.
- calling what so closely resembles a thermite reaction taking place in a video melted aluminum without ANY discussion of the matter. "It was aluminum end of story"... How is this not selective?

[LARED]

34. Confirmation bias applies to all people in some

degree. As for the rest of your post it is a wonderful "tribute" to the notion of confirmation bias gone wild.

Not only do you give an excessive value to confirmatory informationm but you embellish it to the point of silliness.

[medienanalyse]

35. the key question of 9/11

was never "controlled demolition or not".

It was "who opened the airspace for the terror", see:
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

The WTC-theories were in itself contradictory. Rodriguez says, explosions started even before the first impact, then after the impact the whole time, others tell us about explosions shortly before the collapse. So we have a span of one hour of explosions. Ot is nuts. Nobody was able to tell us WHEN and HOW all the devices for the xplosions could have planted (there are people working there !), and nobody was able to tell the difference between a concrete pancake falling onto the platform beyond and the sound of an explosion.
Ho does a lift sound when it is falling hundreds of meters in a hollow lift case ? Like explosion.

I only made some comments to that stuff, i.e. in
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschspuren4.html

[petgoat]

42. After midnight, tall buildings are thinly populated

by typists, Int'l communications people, security guards, and sometimes maintenance personnel.

William Rodriguez was in the basementand and described what he experienced there.
Others described what they observed at other times from other vantage points.
(Jazz will jump all over me for making this distinction when I point to the
disparate stories of the firemen about WTC7 structural damage, but she better
think before doing so because there is no comparison here.)

Nobody was able to tell us WHEN and HOW all the devices for the xplosions could
have planted

In the elevator shafts after midnight, using the roofs of the elevator cars as movable
staging.

NIST's report suggests a "when" quite precisely:

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers
were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

That is, they found no evidence of explosives placed before 23:59:59 on 9/10/01.

[medienanalyse]

44. you are missing my points

and insinuating, that both buildings were stuffed with explosives after 23:59:59 "After midnight, tall buildings are thinly populated".

Do you know they had sniffing dogs in the buildings just the weekend before?
Do you know how much time it takes to plant explosives in a way to bring down such a building ?
Do you know that nearly 3000 victims did not say a word about the cables, drilling holes and explosives pressed into these holes when occupying their placs ?
Do you know that no guard complained, and that it takes hundreds of men to plant the hundreds of explosives according to the hundrteds of "explosions" which were "eyewitnessed"?

There is NO, not even a chemtrail, NO tiny bit of evidence for the theory.

And again: nobody ever was able to distinguish the sound of a falling concrete platform onto the one beyond from the sound of an explosion.

Forget the eywitnesses.
Forget the earwitnesses.

There are not witnesses fot the absurd theory of controlled demolition. There are plenty of witnesses for the socalled pqancake theory.

And: tehre is no need to umplant the "controlled demolition" bullshit except to darken the question: who opened the skies for the terror planes.

Who did it ?

Instead of pointing to the some PNAC individuals you are running like a shepherd after phony physical "evidence" which is not evidence and after hundreds of evildoers who are not available and hundreds of earwitnesses who will tell you (if ever asked): "yes it could hve been a bang by a big piece of concrete too.

Look if you find ONE explosion-engineer.
Look if you find any sense in bringing the buildings down by several events in one hour.
tell us about controlle demolitions which were spread over one hour , here and there. But one hour in time.

It is all bullshit.

[medienanalyse]

45. Explanations by Janitor Rodriguez

Listen to him:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

He and his people and the firemen discussed the "bangs"- which sound like "paaah" and "boom" "clash" too, BTW.

Explanations uttered except the impact:

- Generator break or explosion
- bomb
- gas tanls in the kitchens

He only does not mention:
concrete and lifzs falling down,
jet fuel spashing in the liftcases.

But there is a long range of explanations for explosion sounds.

[petgoat]

47. Rodriguez's explosion was BEFORE the jet impact. nt

[Jazz2006]

55. Depends which version of Rodriquez's stories you choose. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

57. You're saying Rodriguez is a liar?

Oh that's right, you only think firemen are "honest".

[Jazz2006]

88. Reading comprehension problems ... again?

Rodriquez gave several different versions of events. Shouldn't you, a self proclaimed "truthseeker" know this?

Sheesh.

As for the rest of your post, it's just another in a long list of lies on your behalf, and no rational reader will be surprised by such behaviour on your part. Same old, same old, when you can't refute the facts, call an honest poster a liar and hope that a few CTers will buy it. You know what, even your fellow CTer's aren't buying it these days.

Edit: typo in the subject line.

[petgoat]

92. I can see you in court, Jazz.

Your honor, Exhibit A shows that my client made the payment on time.
Exhibit B shows that my client was out of town on the night in question.
Exhibit C is a memorandum of understanding recording the intentions of both parties.

I didn't bother to bring them, I'll just tell you what's in them.

[Jazz2006]

93. Cute.

Wrong, but cute.

As for Rodriquez' varying statements, however, they have been discussed and posted in this forum severala times. I am not going to play "scour the internet" at the behest of a CTer who already knows that this is the case.

[petgoat]

95. Ah, the "Asked and Answered" ploy followed by the dusty

"And you Know It." You forgot the "The Laughs Just Keep on Coming" line.

[Jazz2006]

96. More bullshit on your part.

Why do you pretend that you don't know about the various statements Rodriquez made when a simple search in this very forum shows otherwise?

[petgoat]

46. your points

they had sniffing dogs in the buildings just the weekend before

Did they have them there after midnight the morning of 9/11? Thermobaric
devices dropped down the elevator shafts could have escaped detection.

how much time it takes to plant explosives

Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert, said a few charges in key places could
have brought the building down. Sorry, but the engineering community's
acceptance of the FEMA zipper/pancake theory for three years is inconsistent
with the notion that an elaborate demolition scheme was necessary. Zipper/
pancake makes it seem that a couple of suicidal guys with electric cutting
disks could have brought the building down in half an hour!

nearly 3000 victims did not say a word about the cables, drilling holes
and explosives pressed into these holes

You drill concrete columns, not steel ones. Radio control means no cables.
Many floors were vacant. Who inspected the elevator shafts and how often?
Thermobarics could have escaped detection.

Do you know that no guard complained

Graveyard-shift guards are usually satisfied to ensure that the building
doesn't burn down, that there are no plumbing leaks, and that nobody catches
them sleeping.

it takes hundreds of men to plant the hundreds of explosives

Dr. Jones says 1000 pounds of explosives could do it.

hundreds of explosives according to the hundrteds of "explosions" which
were "eyewitnessed"?

The fact that there may have been false reports of explosions based on
misinterpretations of sound from falling elevators, etc., and that there
may have been natural explosions from electrical shorts and stuff does
not mean that no reported explosions came from bombs.

Your argument is as if to say that because there are yellow cars and blue
cars, therefore no cars are red.

There is NO, not even a chemtrail, NO tiny bit of evidence for the theory.

There are reports of light flashes from lower floors. There are William Rodriguez's
reports. There's the energetic ejection of pulverized concrete. There's the
molten metal. There's the sulfidated steel samples of FEMA Appendix C. There's
the fact that none of the steel samples support the theory that fire weakened the
steel.

nobody ever was able to distinguish the sound of a falling concrete platform onto
the one beyond from the sound of an explosion.

Nor the sound of an explosion from a falling platform. An honest investigation would
have built samples and done accoustical tests.

Forget the eywitnesses. Forget the earwitnesses.

Right. Trust the blatantly dishonest government investigators instead.

There are plenty of witnesses for the socalled pqancake theory.

Name some.

tehre is no need to umplant the "controlled demolition" bullshit

The reason is to understand the truth. That it distracts from the war games
and the PNAC connections and the hijackers' peculiar relationships to the
American authorities is a point well taken.

Look if you find ONE explosion-engineer.

Dr. Van Romero said the collapse looked just like a controlled demolition, and
said a few charges could have done the job.

Look if you find any sense in bringing the buildings down by several events
in one hour.

Mission-critical tasks commonly are executed redundantly. The catastrophe that
dud explosives would have represented (and it already happened at Oklahoma City!)
justified simultaneous parallel operations in this case in a covert op. Of course
if Osama's op was a dud and discovered, it would only be another failed attempt,
so they had less to lose.

tell us about controlle demolitions which were spread over one hour , here and
there. But one hour in time.

Perhaps the idea was to scare people out of the building, and to plant the idea
that a lot of things that happen in burning buildings make noise that sounds like
explosions.

[medienanalyse]

50. answer

“Rodriguez's explosion was BEFORE the jet impact. Nt” – that is what he says and I have heard it. I pointed out: he was not sure in his judgement about time, place and cause of the “explosions”. Try to get it into your mind.

@ petgoat:
“Did they have them there after midnight the morning of 9/11?”
Again you prove your understanding. You are telling us: teams spread their devives all over two towers just in one night. Normally it takes weeks if not months to prepare a controlled demolition of such extension.

”Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert” is unknown to me. The perpetrators of 1993 believed in ONE bomb. For sure it is possible to take a heavy bomb to demolish everything. We are talking not about a nuclear bomb but about a “controlled demolition” – and it was not the me who threw this ring in.


“pancake makes it seem that a couple of suicidal guys with electric cutting
disks could have brought the building down in half an hour!” Are you nuts ? Heat and thrust are enough to loosen the cramps, gravity makes the rest. No team, nada.

“You drill concrete columns, not steel ones. Radio control means no cables.” Yesyes, go on. You explain a theory how it might have worked. If Rome had not had a Ceasar history might have developed differently. If. Your approach is pure phantasy.

“Dr. Jones says 1000 pounds of explosives could do it.” Dr. Jones I s CIA. Dr. Jomes says an amount of exlosives which is correct as I said: with experience in the right place and so on, yes. But we are taling about HUNDREDS of “explosions” in two towers spread over more than one hour. Listen to your “earwitnesses”! The “Jones-information” is inconsistent to all your arguments before. It is worthless.


“…does not mean that no reported explosions came from bombs. ”
Hooray ! This is wonderfull medieeval argument. “The fact that the witch could not be connected with the bad harvest does not mean that no reported meeting wit the devil took place.”
I agree. Because I will – as nobody else – be able to prove something which did not take place. I am not arguing belief.

“chemtrail”: the “1000 ponds” must be identified in each single gram of dust. You have dust enough, since years.

“There's the fact that none of the steel samples support the theory that fire weakened the steel.” So you were able to examine the steel ? As much as I know it was melted in China like all evidence was destroyed if available.


“Right. Trust the blatantly dishonest government investigators instead.”
Yes, if TRUST is the measurement. Why not trust Hitler or Nero or Bush when they talk about the weather ? Again: forget the “expertise” of people who hear “explosions” because they have seen the impact (exploding) because they hear what they expect to hear since 1993 (explosion) and what they were drilled for since that date and what they could not explain otherwise. I would have used the term “explosion” too.

“Dr. Van Romero said the collapse looked just like a controlled demolition” Congrats. I could say the same. Like with the explosions.

“Name some.” All your “witnesses” including Rodriguez. Additionally every student of statics and architecture who wsrudies the way of special building of the WTC towers.

“The reason is to understand the truth. ….is a point well taken”

Good. It is a starter. “understand the truth” is a good will but ineffective. First things first. The collapse is a definitely minor problem even if all your theories were true. It does not at all lead to any perpetrator – which is the goal in any criminal case and in politics. There are two approaches: “solve the case” or “ get Bush where he belongs”. Collapse theories lead into the nowhere.

[petgoat]

53. answeranswer

he (Wm. Rodriguez) was not sure in his judgement about time, place and cause of the “explosions”.

I guess you'll have to provide the cite on that.

Normally it takes weeks if not months to prepare a controlled demolition of such extension.

Use of the elevator car roofs as movable staging much aid efficiency. Dr. Jones estimates that 1000
pounds of explosives could have done the job. Dr. Romero says a few charges in key places could
have done the job. The widely believed (though now discredited) zipper theory confirms this.

Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert” is unknown to me.

Google is your friend.

The perpetrators of 1993 believed in ONE bomb.

And it didn't work.

Heat and thrust are enough to loosen the cramps, gravity makes the rest.

Get current. NIST says the flimsy "cramps" were go gosh-darned strong that saggy
floors buckled the perimeter columns!

Your approach is pure phantasy.

Radio control is no fantasy. Ever use a wireless microphone? A wireless telephone?

Dr. Jones I s CIA.

Certainly I've considered that possibility. I happen to believe he's sincere, but
I could be wrong, and I would believe it if shown evidence. I know a few Mormons.

we are taling about HUNDREDS of “explosions” in two towers spread over more than
one hour.

Hundreds of reports is not hundreds of separate explosions. Please compile the
reports to support this.

This is wonderfull medieeval argument.

Not at all. Your Venn diagrams are all skewed if you claim that the fact that
some non-explosive events made sounds that resembled explosions refutes the notion
that some of the sounds were actual explosions.

“chemtrail”: the “1000 ponds” must be identified in each single gram of dust.
You have dust enough, since years.

Has anyone analyzed it for explosive residues? Nobody ever examined the steel samples
for explosive residues.

were able to examine the steel ? As much as I know it was melted in China

NIST cites something like 273 steel samples. None of the core steel samples show
heating over 250 degrees C. Only maybe 3 samples show heating above 250 degrees,
all of them perimeter columns.

"Trust the blatantly dishonest government investigators instead.” Yes, if TRUST is the measurement.

Trust is the measurement in this country's current political climate. Do you trust the
official explanations?

All your “witnesses” including Rodriguez. Additionally every student of statics and
architecture who wsrudies the way of special building of the WTC towers.

The issue was validation of the pancake theory. How is Wm. Rodriguez a witness for that?
You fail to consider that NIST has repudiated the pancake theory and AFAIK no one has
challenged that refutation, embarassing though it is to MIT.


Collapse theories lead into the nowhere.

On the contrary. Collapse theories lead to: "The official story makes no sense."

I thought you were better informed than this.

[medienanalyse]

56. Answer II

Friend,

“Rodriguez) was not sure in his judgement about time, place and cause of the “explosions”.- I guess you'll have to provide the cite on that.”
Listen to his statement in Chicago. He retells his DISCUSSIONS with colleagues and fireworkers. Which is quite adequate to his position. How could he ever KNOW about the impact of a plane when sitting in the basement. He insinuates with dramatic gestures (really good performance) he knew everything better than his colleagues.

“The perpetrators of 1993 believed in ONE bomb. - And it didn't work.”
Yes – so the conclusion is: several bombs would have been needed to be planted.

“Hundreds of reports is not hundreds of separate explosions.”
Yes. So take them one by one: the ones which were heard by the janitor in the basement, then those he describes when climbing up – they were noticed in several reports. Double them for two towers. Now take all the “flashes” and so on at so many windows describes in so many pixel-studies. I say hundreds. They all must be planted and fixed secretly without being seen by the morning shifts.



“Your approach is pure phantasy.
Radio control is no fantasy.”
Is this the way you argue ? You answer on a statement like “the Titanic was not sunk by bullshit” with “bullshit is an existing material”. I know that. It stinks.



“None of the core steel samples show
heating over 250 degrees C”
a) please tell me why you suddenly TRUST official reports.
b) Steel bends and bows and breaks in every temperature. Ever seen a car accident? The cars are not heated to shrink and loose their shape.




”Has anyone analyzed it for explosive residues?” You ask ME ? You all have the possibility to do it with any gram in every chemical university institute. Why do YOU not prove your claims of explosives being used ?



“Do you trust the official explanations?”
Yes. When they concern the nice weather conditions that day. Or when they give an account of the number of victims. But, and this is the answer to your allegation that I am not well informed, they are not my measurement in important questions. NIST reports are not studied by me word by word. Same with other official reports. Because there is a lot of interest in them, here: insurance responsibilities. FBI and CIA give different reports too in every single question, and so on. My job is not to show up contradiction or lies. The murderer is not guilty because he lied after committing the crime.

I can only make the proposal: stay with the facts. And not with the statement about the facts and with details which are buried under hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble. You physical evidence theorists are dependent on the bits of information which they give you to snap on. And the simple material evidence which you could offer to the world, the evidence which is undeniably unfaked and redoable in experiment – you did not do it.
Prove that explosives are part of the dust. Just prove your case instead of boring me and others by telling us “but this might have happened in this or that way”. Untill now I am still not interested in any alternative WTC-theory.

They are a luxurious hobby while the perpetrators bomb the world and must not care for being sued at home.

[petgoat]

59. IIII

How could he ever KNOW about the impact of a plane when sitting in the basement.

I believe he said in this interview with Greg Szymanski that he heard the plane strike.
It hit the core columns, after all. That would make noise through the entire building.
The seismographic measurements say the plane impacts shook the earth more than the
collapse of WTC7 did. http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/william-rodriguez-and-greg-szymanski.html

several bombs would have been needed to be planted.

Nobody disputes that.

They all must be planted and fixed secretly without being seen by the morning shifts.

Many of the floors were vacant. The morning shift workers do not commonly inspect the elevator
shafts or the space above the suspended ceiling.

“Your approach is pure phantasy.
Radio control is no fantasy.”
Is this the way you argue ?

The assertion that radio control is impossible is absurd on its face. The argument that
accidental detonation was a great risk is weak: Insensitive receivers would react only
to very powerful transmitters. Use of a pulse codes in the detonators for timing purposes
would also prevent accidental detonation.

a) please tell me why you suddenly TRUST official reports.
b) Steel bends and bows and breaks in every temperature. Ever seen a car accident? The cars are not heated to shrink and loose their shape.

a) When NIST claims the fires weakened the steel, and admits that their steel samples don't
support their position, I'm inclined to believe that's the case. Perhaps they exaggeratd the
heating of the steel and it didn't even reach 200 degrees C, but in the absence of other
evidence, I'll accept it at face value. NIST's lies are subtle ones.

b) Cars are built of sheet metal, not ASTM E119 steel plate.

Why do YOU not prove your claims of explosives being used ?

Don't have a lab, don't have a sample, and lack experience in exposives analysis.

The murderer is not guilty because he lied after committing the crime.

No, but when a suspect's story keeps changing, that's a red flag to investigators.

stay with the facts

I'm trying. That's part of the appeal of WTC studies. It's all about physics
and engineering instead of about people's motivations and people's connections
and things that can't be proven.

And the simple material evidence which you could offer to the world, the evidence
which is undeniably unfaked and redoable in experiment – you did not do it.

The steel that would have told the tale was shipped to India before it could be
examined by experts. Some of it was "stolen" and sent to mob-affiliated recycling
yards. Since every piece of steel had a stamped ID number, finding the pieces of
interest should have been relatively easy.

Sure, I wish somebody would analyze the dust, but I can't do it. I work with the
facts I've got.

Untill now I am still not interested in any alternative WTC-theory. They are a luxurious hobby while the perpetrators bomb the world and must not care for being sued at home.

I understand the attitude, but you made the argument yourself that the insurers certainly
have reason to be interested in what brought the towers down. They could afford to finance
a multi-million-dollar investigation, and could file a civil lawsuit with subpoena power.

The five-year anniversary of 9/11 is fast approaching and all the media will have cover stories
and movies. The reports are being written right now. What gets reported depends to a large
degree on how hard the Truthists push in these next few weeks.

[medienanalyse]

73. yawn

Petgoat,

Do you really not realise how weak your standpoint is ? How construed your arguments are ?

Sample 1:
“Your approach is pure phantasy.
Radio control is no fantasy.”
Is this the way you argue ?”

That was my question and I illustrated it with the TITANIC-bullshit. And your answer is AGAIN.
“The assertion that radio control is impossible is absurd on its face.”

So I will tell you again, for the slow reader:
1. bombs exist in this world.
2. radio control is a fact in this world.
3. Bullshit is a weak and stinking material in this world.
BUT: bombs are not responsible for every destruction, radioing does not necessarily incite every bomb, and bullshit might sink ships, but very rarely.

GET INTO YOUR HEAD: you argue with possibilities and not with facts. I do not deny the possibility of a controlled demolition, of explosives on lift cars and of radio ignition. Not. I do NOT doubt possibilities. You must not tell me what MIGHT have happened. PROVE it and do not bore people by endless reiterations and pics and Silverstone “pull-down” quotes.


Sample 2:
“Many of the floors were vacant. The morning shift workers do not commonly inspect the elevator shafts or the space above the suspended ceiling.”

Yes, the vacant floors were used weekly for aorgies with naked women and shaved sheep. Loads of honey and strawberries were spread over the flesh and in some rooms they used even machines to do their black Sabbath. All transported in the night on top of the lift cars. Aaaahaaaam, except in 9/10: they changed the programme to make boom boom. Cavemen from Tora Bora came in and broght 1 ton of TNT or butter (which melts !!!).



Samplle 3:
I asked “How could he ever KNOW about the impact of a plane when sitting in the basement.”
Your queer answer was:
”… he said … that he heard the plane strike.”

I know what he SAID. I know about the noise. We know about the shudder.

But HE COULD NOT KNOW if it was a plane or a bomb AT THAT TIME. And this is important because he was so eager to tell the public in the last month that he could distinguish clearly generator boom from Bomb from plane crash from gas eclosion from falling platforms from falling lift cars from igniting kerosin.

Rodriguez Superstar SAYS a lot. Like you.

Sample 4:
“Don't have a lab, don't have a sample, and lack experience in exposives analysis.”

So obviously the New York “physical evidence” community is unable to obtain some grams from those hundredthousands which were spread over New York ? Unable to get access to a mass spectrometer ? Not even this famous “Dr. Jones?”
You would IMMEDIATELY be able to prove your case. You could send sample to tha Malaysians and any other laboratory of the world.


Petgoat: I end the discussion here. It makes no sense to discuss with a child who wants an ice cream to tell there is no ice cream available.
You want ice cream, you want, you want, you want.
“apparently <…not…>a claim plausible to the Great Silent Majority of structural engineers who never disputed it”
The cild is loud, and others are silent. Yes.

Get adult.

[petgoat]

74. Freeper tactics, medien

Your Point 1: demands for impossible proof
Your Point 2: ridicule of a reasonable point by invoking cartoon fantasies
Your Point 3: Presumably Mr. Rodriguez could distinguish the sound made by a bomb
near him in the basement from the presumably differing sound of an airplane
striking the perimeter and the core. Did ANYONE describe the impact as sounding
like a bomb?
Your Point 4: Sorry, not my table. Take it up with [email protected]

The OCTers are flipping out! Truth is busting out all over! Yippee! I was not
looking forward to the prospect of getting sent to Gitmo as an "Information Terrorist"
guilty of "Slandering the State".

[Carefulplease]

98. "Did anyone describe the impact as sounding as a bomb?"

Well, who in the building did *not* believe at first it was a bomb? Very few, I would guess. Just a couple Google hits:

http://alumni.udayton.edu/np_story.asp?storyID=612

The 24-year-old Baumbach had made the hour commute from his Merrick, Long Island home to the World Trade Center that day and was at his desk by 8 a.m. "I'd been working on my laptop for a while when I heard a loud explosion and felt the building sway," he said. "I went to the window, but all I could see was debris. I thought a bomb went off and my first instinct was to get away from the windows. I was afraid they'd break and I'd be sucked out."

http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/BHS/academics/junior/gunning/jayqwanh.36517/home.html

Then the plane hit the world trade center. The whole building rocked. The elevator bounced up and down like a yo-yo on a string. Everyone just stood there, frozen. Nobody screamed, nobody panicked. The elevator door was stuck about three-quarters of the way open. The elevator operator said, 'what was that?' "I thought a bomb had gone off in the building.

[Carefulplease]

65. Who is right, Jones or Hoffman? NIST or NIST?

Use of the elevator car roofs as movable staging much aid efficiency. Dr. Jones estimates that 1000
pounds of explosives could have done the job.

Jones speaks of 2000 pound of RDX grade explosives in each tower.
That corresponds to 2 tons of TNT per tower. Only a few days
ago you were relying on Hoffman for the claim that there isn't
enough gravitational energy in one tower (250 tons of TNT) to account
for the alleged observed effects (the crushing of concrete and the
"pyroclastic" cloud.) Hoffman believes that 12500 tons of TNT are
required.

Who is right: Jones or Hoffman? Is it the equvalent of 2 tons or 12500
tons of TNT that are required?

Get current. NIST says the flimsy "cramps" were go gosh-darned strong that saggy
floors buckled the perimeter columns!

Your approach is pure phantasy.

Could it be that trusses connections that are meant to support the
weight of one single floor are strong enough to pull flexible columns
slightly inward -- columns which it is precisely their job to keep
straight -- yet are "flimsy" enough to give way when the upper block<
of 20-40 storey weighing 100000-200000 tons comes crashing down on them?
Do you rather expect those truss connections to be strong enough to take
over the full dynamic load that just overcame nearly 287 columns?

NIST cites something like 273 steel samples. None of the core steel samples show
heating over 250 degrees C. Only maybe 3 samples show heating above 250 degrees,
all of them perimeter columns.

Do you take this as evidence that few or no column segment was ever heated
above 600C? Then, is that not also evidence that few or no column segment
was heated above 1500C? The thermite theory is out then, isn't it?

[petgoat]

66. Who is right: Jones or Hoffman?

Why not both?

Jones is talking about the explosives necessary to cause the collapse.
Hoffman is talking about the energy necessary to cause the dust clouds.

Why do you think they need to be the same?

Could it be that trusses connections that are meant to support the
weight of one single floor are strong enough to pull flexible columns
slightly inward

NIST claims the perimeter columns buckled, and that's why the buildings
fell down. The issue of the "clips" or "cramps" involves some background:
Thomas Eagar developed the theory that under the stress of the fires,
the trusses simply "unzipped" from the perimeter columns and the floors
pancaked and boom boom boom boom the towers fell down. This theory was
adopted by FEMA. It was promoted with quite dishonest graphics by NOVA
that have only recently been taken down from their website.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

The issue here is the contradiction between the earlier claim that the clips
were flimsy (apparently a claim plausible to the Great Silent Majority of
structural engineers who never disputed it) and NIST's claim that the clips
are strong enough to pull the building down (apparently equally plausible to
all those structural engineers out there).

Do you take this as evidence that few or no column segment was ever heated
above 600C?

I take it as evidence that the evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed,
and that the official investigations are thus a joke. The official investigators
who failed to shout from the housetops "I can't tell you what happened because they
destroyed the evidence!" are not scientists but dishonest political hacks.

Then, is that not also evidence that few or no column segment
was heated above 1500C?

No, because the FEMA Appendix C samples (which NIST claims don't exist) do show extreme
heating. There's no telling what was hidden in the great majority of the steel that
apparently FEMA never saw.

[Carefulplease]

67. So you believe both...

They can not both be right if *you* are right.

You used Jones's figure to support your suggestion that
the explosives could have been planted overnight. If you believe
Hoffman also, then Jones's figure is irrelevant to the argument
you made. Or do you think 12 thousand tons of TNT (or RDX) could
easily have been planted overnight? If not, then either your
suggestion is off, or Hoffman is wrong, (or you ought to become
a nuke-theorist.)

The Eagar/FEMA account is quite consistent with the NIST findings.
It only differs in the precise sequence of events leading to the
collapse. This is a dynamical system and the weakest link fails
first -- and then all the other links are bound to fail in quick
succession. If too many floor trusses fail, then the columns looses
their lateral support and they are more likely to buckle and fail.
If on the other hand columns buckle too much, then they become unable
to bear their load and the top of the tower goes crashing down. All
the lower floors "pancake" as soon as they are hit by the falling
structure.

It is not surprising that there wasn't a perfect consensus for one unique
theory before the very extensive and detailed reconstruction of events
that was performed by NIST. It is not necessary that there be even now
perfect agreement among specialists on all and every little detail of
tremendously complex events. The one opinion that, it seems to me, ought
to call for no dissent (as they havn't yet) among people who are qualified
in the relevant fields is that Jones's, Wood's, Hoffman's, Ryan's or Ross's
wildly inconsistent theses are all equally unsound.

You provided no evidence that either FEMA of NIST destroyed evidence.
We seem to agree that there is no more hard evidence for the absence
of hot fires than there is for the presence of thermite.

[petgoat]

72. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that the test of a first-rate intelligence is

"the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function."

9/11 analysis requires the ability to hold about seven opposed ideas in the mind. None of
us are up to it.

You used Jones's figure to support your suggestion that
the explosives could have been planted overnight. If you believe
Hoffman also, then Jones's figure is irrelevant to the argument
you made.

I believe Jones for the purpose of bringing down the towers. You say the dust can be
created and ejected naturally from the potential energy of the towers. If so, there's no
reason not to believe him.

Hoffman's paper is speculative and under review. In any case, the lack of any
plausible mechanism for the energetic expulsion of dust is an issue more compelling
to me than the energy analysis of the dust clouds. Hoffman's energy could conceivably
have been provided by hyperbaric weapons dropped down the elevator shafts.

[Carefulplease]

97. 20 tons of thermite, a couple tons of RDX and 2400 MOAB!

Is that the theory you now favour? A couple dozen tons of thermite/thermate (an average of estimates I've seen) to soften up the structure, one or two tons of RDX to break the towers apart, all that stuff sneaked in during the night before 9/11...

And you'd also want to add 2400 10-tons Mothers-of-All-Bombs (each with a yield just short of ten tons) stacked in elevator shafts, just to satisfy Hoffman's pyroclastic wet dreams... and give the whole game away?

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

Dr. Hoffman has been working on this queer paper for three years now. I think he himself favour invisible energy beams from space based satellites as the source of destructive energy, or some such.

[BuddyYoung]

36. Doesn't pertain, because in our system, even the worst 911 Perps

deserve a defense in the court of public opinion. The Perps have all the resources in the world necessary to put on a strong defense and they've obviously been advised NOT to plead guilty. If the facts aren't on their side, they argue the law. If the law isn't on their side, they pound the table. Whenever the truth slips out, they draw attention to the curtains on the other stage. Whenever the prosecution introduces expert testimony from qualified Ph.Ds, they counter it by jumping up and down, calling it propaganda and introducing reports (ASCE, NIST etc.) prepared by real patriots, not some effete corps of impudent snobs who characterzie themselves as intellectuals.

[Poppyseedman]

40. Thanks for that link

Nice to know someone else on this board doesn't have a "predisposition" to believe anything just because it might confirm the worst in this government without any actual empirical evidence to prove it

[arikara]

63. Whoa!

Just checked it out. That site seems to be the rolls royce of disinformation. Talk about a pile of hooey!

:rofl:

[nomatrix]

33. Wow, did you think that up yourself?

Predisposition this....
Military Exercises going on the same day as the attack, leaving the US defenseless. Read every location they picked to leave unguarded. Or don't read it. That's your choice or as you put it....people will believe anything if it fits into their predisposition.

http://complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

[Poppyseedman]

39. Why, do big words frighten you ?

pre·dis·po·si·tion (prē'dĭs-pə-zĭsh'ən)

The state of being predisposed; tendency, inclination, or susceptibility.

[Grateful for Hope]

41. Geesh...there is a need for sarcasm? n/t

[unpossibles]

48. are you serious?

Personally, I don't believe a lot of what is in this forum, although much of it is interesting, and some of it is certainly plausible, but .... do you not remember the myriad attacks on everything Clinton during the 90's? If Kerry (or Gore) were in office when 9/11 happened, a lot of this would be front page news instead of in the dungeon.

It doesn't take a great leap to think that corrupt people in power will do whatever they can to retain or increase their power. It happens every day, from peons stabbing their coworkers in the backs to get promoted to people like Ken Lay screwing over the entire country. I don't see how the idea is that far fetched that Bush knew about and ignored the 9/11 warnings, and maybe played an active role in them. Who knows - maybe the Iran/Contra escape made me cynical about this same crowd and their ability to get away with murder. Literally.

[Poppyseedman]

5. delete

double post

[Bushwick Bill]

26. Loose Change 2 available here.

Google pulled most of the versions that read "Loose Change," but it is there under a different name.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726

[quickesst]

29. Been thinking..

about bush and his remark "If Syria would tell Hezbollah to stop this shit, it would be over", or something to that affect. Got me to thinking a little, and it's really simple. If the government, the OTC crowd here, or anywhere for that matter, would show the world ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS, VIDEO, ETC., that proves without a doubt the government version of events, "THIS SHIT WOULD BE OVER!" Pretty simple if you ask me. Thanks.
quickesst

[BuddyYoung]

30. Unfortunately, that's impossible, so we're stuck OCTspin & disinfo. nt

nt

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

37. You already have video

You watched it on Sept 11th. Two planes crashed into the WTC, fires erupted, and the towers went down. They were not minor fires or hot enough to turn steel into taffy. They were major fires that weakened the steal just enough for it to deform and slip letting all of that weight shift and break the system set up to keep it in the air (i.e. the sytem that worked against gravity).

If you want to blame somebody, blame, Newton.

Oh wait, CGI and all that stuff, those planes weren't real.

Oh wait, they were real but they didn't fly into the buildings, they landed in Portsmouth to populate an underwater city.

Despite all of the posting of the same video "analyzed" by "experts" for frame rate and movement, despite all the out of context quotes and unsubstantiated "facts or Eye witness reports,"

The above is what happened. Now you wanna talk LIHOP or incompetence, who knows where we go down that road, but I suspect more of the same when LIHOP becomes the topic.

[wildbilln864]

38. well you said...

"They were major fires that weakened the steal just enough for it to deform and slip letting all of that weight shift and break the system set up to keep it in the air (i.e. the sytem that worked against gravity)."

I don't believe it. You can if you wish to. The fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel all the way to the ground! If what you say is true then the parts on fire would maybe collapse and fall but the rest of the building below them was still very strong and would hold up. Otherwise many other buildings that were gutted by fire and not built nearly as strong would have collapsed too. But we know that this 911 event is the first time in history and the only time since that fires have brought skyscrapers down completely. And amazingly one only had to burn for less than an hour.
Yeah right!
No way, no how!
Remember the Anthrax? Just another part of the show that was prepared to spread fear so they could have their WOT debacle.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

43. Read again

No need to melt the steel "all the way to the ground."

But of course, all this has been hashed out before. You are where you are, and I am where I am. By the way, what color is the sky in your world?

[wildbilln864]

49. i guess you think you're cute with your sky color...

stuff but that's typical of you and your other aliases.

"No need to melt the steel all the way down." you say?
Then please explain how the undamaged floors below lost their integrity and fell straight down so fast. I know this has all been hashed and rehashed but no one has given a reasonable answer that fits. If you think they have then good for you. But you're wrong IMO! And isn't evryone entitled to theirs.
By the way, why do you so constantly try to discredit those who would have it investigated? Why are you and others who seem to make it a career to be here to oppose the hypothesis of those who question and won't accept the official conspiracy hypothesis, always trying to quiet suspicion? You are failing as you should know so why bother?

I have no problem with other's opinions until they want to attack or ridicule others for theirs.

And another question for you. Do you think that the anthrax that was mailed, and killed five people, had anything to do with 911 and the so-called terrorist attacks?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

52. No other aliases

Why is it that CT'ers think that there are only a few people who disagree with them and that we must all have different aliases to look like there are more than there are. The real question is why do we continue to respond to the "evidence" here---what was the definition of insanity again?

Why do you and the "others" make it a point to present your unsubstantiated evidence and speculation? Perhaps some of us are here b/c we elect not to allow DU to fall to the fringe group and be viewed as a hiding place for all sorts of these types of ideas. We don'e want what the Fundies say about the Party to become the truth.

Now as for the collapse (ad infinitum), perhaps you didn't see the description as a system. The weight was distributed over a SYSTEM meant to support it. The system was dependent on a balance of trusses and floor joists distributing the weight evenly. When the integrity was compromised to a point where the rest of the system could not hold itself up, viola, gravity takes over and does the rest. The force was distributed throughout the entire metal frame, after the impact it was damaged but able to redistribute the weight. However, when the trusses and floor joists slipped out of position, that pushed the system past the point of no return and the entire system broke down.

That is much easier to believe than people lying in wait for the right Presidential Administration, to detonate the explosives laid years earlier in the walls (without anyone seeing them), or whatever the CT is of the day.

As for your last point, unrelated, i.e. Non-Sequitur.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Lets assume that the fires were hot enough to soften the carriers

and buckle them. In that process, the hanger clips failed. So the floors fail and start pancaking one on top of the other.

So why weren't spindlely cores for both buildings remaining? Each core had 47 heavy duty columns that were tied to the bedrock. Why did they disappear, too?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

58. Great Bluegrass!!

N/T

[petgoat]

60. "why weren't spindlely cores for both buildings remaining? "

Right.

Thinking that the debris took down the core is like thinking a bird's nest can demolish
a fence post.

[wildbilln864]

61. Thank you petgoat, that was my point exactly but...

obviously there wasn't any credible response just straw men and sophistry as usuall. Even if the building's frame lost it's strength around the impact area. It was still strong below the area. It would have held up!

And I believe the anthrax was related. It was part of the campaign to spread fear so that the unpatriot act could be shoved through. IMO!

[petgoat]

62. Anthrax is key to media suppression, IMHO

That newspaper office in Florida was so throughly contaminated, with anthrax tracked into
every single room, that it had to be abandoned.

Could you imagine what that would do to an outfit like CBS or NYT or WaPo if suddenly they
had to abandon their HQ and their computers and their files?

That was such a threat that the institutions decided they'd better be nice to the people
who were protecting them from the terrorists. It's taken them four and a half years to
recover some nads.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

76. Point out the strawman.

Uphold your response and point out the strawman.

I can point out the non sequiturs can you point out the straw man?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

75. Are we back to the concrete core again?

Is that where the fencepost analogy came from?

[petgoat]

77. No, I'm comparing the steel core to a fencepost. It was

of necessity built to take all the gravitational loads of the building,
and highly redundant.

I think the core should have collapsed more slowly than the perimeter, the
floor slabs should have started falling off the stack, and the disorganized
mass of debris should not have had the power to take down the core columns
when it got to the bottom 50 floors or so.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

78. Twisting and tumbling

Unless the debris was twisting and tumbling.

If the floors fell straight down, and just slid down an internal support structure perhaps that might be true.

But the structure seemed to fail on one side first which could have imparted enough sideways motion to bring the debris crashing down on the the central structure taking it down as it fell. By the time you got to the bottom 50 floors, you had what, 60 floors worth of debris coming down I'm thinking?

[Carefulplease]

70. Some indeed remained standing, for a while...

...as can be seen on some pictures and videos.
Some columns and sections of the core fell a few
seconds later after they lost all lateral support.
You can not maintain a thin 500 feet steel spire
erect for very long without any kind of bracing
when it is undulating in turbulent hot air.

However, their standing up longer is just one
more piece of evidence that blows the controlled
demolition theory out of the water.

[petgoat]

71. And how, pray tell, does the spire refute the CD hypothesis? nt

[Carefulplease]

83. If the core was blown up...

If the core had been blown up with powerful explosives or if
core columns had been cut with "thermite charges", and
if such events were what drove the collapse, as some CD
theorists like Jones, Wood or yourself suggest, then
it would be hard to account for large portions of the core
being seen still standing *after* all the floor frames and
perimeter walls have collapsed all the way to the ground.

It is however easy to account for (briefly) surviving vertical
elements if the collapse is gravity driven. Lateral connections
are destroyed by the falling floors while they slide down along
vertical columns and shafts.

[readmoreoften]

86. Do you have pictures of large portions of the cores still standing?

I see one building with a handfull of spires split off about 50% of the way down the building. That's it.

[petgoat]

87. All you did was elaborate your statement. You didn't explain it.

Do you think CD would necessarily be done by anal retentive demolitionists who were
careful to snip every piece of steel into little pieces? Jazz said about half the
elevators had tricky locks (where she got this info I don't know). So perhaps
there was easy access to some elevator shafts and no access to others. Perhaps
directional charges were used in the core.

Also, note the spires occurred only in the lower fifty floors or so. Even if a
collapse was initiated by controlled demolition at the top, it would have been
gravity driven by the time it got to the bottom.

Confirmation bias strikes again!

[Carefulplease]

89. If explosives were only used to initiate the collapse...

Then all of Wood's, Jones's, Hoffman's calculations that purport to prove that massive amounts of explosives were used or that not enough gravitational potential energy is present are worthless. They specifically argue that explosives must be placed all over the place to account for the near gravity free fall speed of the towers, to account for the the concrete pulverization, etc. The "anal retentive" solution (witness Wood's mini-nukes and Hoffman's 2500 tons of TNT) *is* the method you and your Schoolars-for-Truth allies have been polemicizing for.

It is now incumbent on you to explain how these explosives located mainly in the core could blow all the perimeter columns away laterally with tremendous force and reduce all the concrete to 80 micron dust and yet leave large core remnants and long column segments standing up. (Unless some of those assumptions of yours are flawed, after all?)

[petgoat]

90. By the time the top fifty floors are disintegrated, the

resistance of the structure to that mass is negligible, and concrete
pulverization is reasonable. I'll assume that some explosives were
necessary to soften up the core. I'll also assume that not all
elevator shafts were accessible.

[Carefulplease]

99. You dissociate yourself from the Scholars then. Good. n/t

[readmoreoften]

80. Great. Have some pictures?

Show me evidence of the spires still standing.

[Carefulplease]

81. Here are some pictures and videos...

There are many more pictures and video segments
that are collected on this conspiracy site.
The claims they make are outlandish (regarding a
secretly constructed concrete core) but the pictures
are telling against the CD theory:

http://concretecore.741.com/

[readmoreoften]

82. Thanks

It appears that at least some of the spires stayed intact from the 50th floor down for some time. I still don't know where the other towers' spires are or why they broke off at that point. But it does raise questions.

[dailykoff]

84. I personally doubt that the spire was part of the core.

I looked carefully at several pics and videos of WTC 1 coming down a couple of months ago (on the terrorize.dk site) and it appeared that the spire was a corner of the WTC 1 perimeter wall, much of which in fact remained standing after the demo. The cores on the other hand were completely obliterated.

[readmoreoften]

85. Well, it doesn't resolve the issue in my mind.

Even if it were a few of the steel beams in the core, I would still want to know why they were all severed 50% of the way down the building.

[Carefulplease]

91. This particular "spire" is tied up with the rest of the core.

You can also see from its location that it's not part of the perimeter wall. Just compare pre- and post-collapse pictures. Also, the dense spandrel bracing of perimeter columns forbids such individualistic behavior. This is clearly not an assembly of columns "trees" as the much shorter surviving part of perimeter wall was.

[dailykoff]

100. Doubtful.

The exact location is hard to determine with any accuracy from the pics, but the real problem is that the core columns were welded to beams at every floor, and there's no chance that one of 47 columns would somehow have (a) stood alone and (b) lost all its beam connections.

My guess is that it's one of the panel assemblies covering the beveled corners:



I don't know exactly how they were constructed or attached, but I imagine they were ridiculously overbuilt like every other part of the structure, and that one stood for a few seconds after the wall it was attached to fell.

[Make7]

101. Your guess would appear to be incorrect.

I think this series of pictures shows what part of the building the spire was actually from:






- Make7

[dailykoff]

102. Nice pics, but they don't contradict anything I said.

But I'm not sure what you're using them to show. :shrug:

[Make7]

103. Maybe you could explain to me...

... why anyone would bother trying to discuss anything with you. There seems to be an inability for you to incorporate facts into your viewpoint.

If you "personally doubt that the spire was part of the core" and your "guess is that it's one of the panel assemblies covering the beveled corners", why don't you simply demonstrate that to be correct by using the available evidence.

Why leave it at 'doubts' and 'guesses' when there is enough information available to determine the truth? You are one of the ones that are interested in the truth, aren't you?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

105. WTF?

Caption your figures for pete's friggin sake, I'm not a mind reader.

Haven't you ever written a technical report?

[Make7]

106. I'm sorry.

I did not realize your inability to correctly interpret photographs was directly caused by the lack of accompanying text to explain exactly what you should be seeing.

However, I would still appreciate it if you could demonstrate how the spire is "one of the panel assemblies covering the beveled corners" of the perimeter wall using photographs in the public domain. I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion in your title of Post #102.

dailykoff wrote in Post #105:

Haven't you ever written a technical report?

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. You see, I was actually writing a post on an internet discussion board, not writing a technical report. My mistake was incorrectly believing that you would be able to accurately interpret a series of photographs on your own.

"Ya ever been in a cockpit before?"
"No sir, I've never been up in a plane before."
"Ya ever seen a grown man naked?"

- Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Thanks for that closeup, Make7.

I've been curious about what the spire was as well, but those pictures do make it clear - placement and structure of the spire shows that it's a portion of the core.

[ediedidcare]

68. I heard Judy Wood discuss fracture energy...

6700 jewels of fracture energy per kilogram of material in the towers was needed to create 60 micrometer particles measured at the site.
This is 500x available energy from gravity only collapse.

[Carefulplease]

69. Not even close...

To be fair, that's not Wood's own calculation but rather
those of a physics teacher who talked to her and Fetzer
over the phone during a broadcast interview right?

6700J (these are Joules, not Jewels) of energy to
fracture one kg of concrete to 60 micron particles
is impossible. But if it were, then the potential
energy of one WTC tower, which is roughly one TJ
10^12J would fracture 37000000000kg of concrete --
more than 100 WTC towers worth. So there would be
plenty of energy.

The fracture energy of concrete is rather around
100J/m^2. The energy required to produce particles
of a given size is the energy to produce the extra
surface area of those particles through the fracturing
of larger chunks.

I already did some calculations that agree with
those that you can find in this paper:

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

(This also agrees with Hoffman's methodology, for
what it's worth, only so far.)

The energy needed to crush all the concrete floors
in one tower to 60 micron dust is shown by Greening
to be 3.2*10^11J. That's one third of the available
energy. However, there is no evidence that all the
concrete was pulverized so finely. The 60 micron figure
comes from measurements of average sizes of dust samples
collected far away from the site, and the issue was
public health, not energy calculations. (Larger chunks
and non-inhalable particles were a non-issue to these
researchers)

There were larger particles and also chunks and
fragments of various sizes buried at ground zero
below the dust cover that settled later on everything
else. More than one 1400000 tons of rubbles were sorted
according to size and ran on conveyor belts at Fresh Kills
Landfill to recover personal belongings and body
parts of victims. All the concrete was *not* crushed
to dust.

One mistake the physics teacher makes is to assume
that each floor only falls onto the next one and has
no more potential energy that can be released from then
on. This is a flawed assumption he seems to inherits
from Wood's own billiard ball model. She seems to believe
that momentum is a quantity that can simply disappear after
a collision and that gravity only acts on large solid
masses and not on air, rubbles or small fragments.

[BuddyYoung]

94. No, there is NO truth to this. Controlled demolitions brought down WTC.

nt

[Jazz2006]

107. Oh, that's convincing.

The answer is "because Buddy (aka killtown, aka americus, etc.) says so".

Got it.


Sheesh.

[Make7]

108. Just in case you haven't heard....

BuddyYoung

I believe there is to be a memorial thread on Tuesday.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

109. Ohhhh, I was away for the weekend....

(doing my best to help the U.S. economy by 'donating' cash to an American casino and hotel in Niagara Falls, NY) hee hee

But the only surprise is that his latest incarnation lasted as long as it did.

I'll bring cookies or cakes or something to the memorial service. Well, maybe I'll just send them to his home base but I get mixed up about whether to direct them to killto... americu... buddyyou.... or the various others that went before....

Perhaps it's best just to send cybercookies to CT central and watch for the next incarnation.

}(

(he'll be back)

edit to fix the brackets and such.... yes, it's been a fun weekend ~ :)

[Make7]

110. If we don't lose money to the casinos, the Terrorists win! ( n/t )

[Jazz2006]

111. Indeed.

Just doing my part :)

(it had absolutely nothing to do with the fun and games and drinking and celebrating and such, oh no, no sirree ~ I was only doing it to thwart terrorists)

:rofl: