Monday, October 30, 2006

Denver Post Treats Jones With Kid Gloves

Here's a soft focus review of a speech Steven Jones made in Denver this week:

Jones - who has agreed to retire from BYU at the end of 2006 - said in an interview that his first doubts emerged when he saw a video of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the 47- story office building that collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition.

The physicist said that in more than a year of investigation, he found thermite residue in samples of dust found near ground zero and on one of the steel beams used in a Sept. 11 memorial. Thermite is a compound that, when ignited, produces incredibly high temperatures and is used by the military in incendiary grenades and to cut through steel.

Some government reports have also identified a significant presence of odd substances - including sulfur and zinc - and have noted that there is no obvious explanation for their presence. Jones said sulfur and zinc are part of a typical thermite fingerprint.

108 Comments:

At 30 October, 2006 16:54, Blogger CHF said...

Ummmm....Hello?

Controlled demolitions are LOUD.

So why is WTC7's "demolition" so quiet?

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:11, Blogger Andrew said...

Kid gloves...right... Would it have been a better article if the writer called the Jones "that douchebag" and made sure to get in as much tired sarcasm as possible?


Anyways, as far as WTC7 goes


Was the demolition so quiet?

Here's a good post by Killtown with some video clips worth watching.

WTC7 about to "blow up"


From the second clip:


"Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01)"



""In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"."

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html
-

Will you debunkers ever concede one 9/11 oddity, even one as glaring as WTC 7? Hell, your "Official" report doesn't even come out until next month (or has it been pushed back another couple years?)

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:19, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:22, Blogger Andrew said...

ahhhhh right on cue.

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:26, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Would it have been a better article if the writer called the Jones "that douchebag"

Yes actually that would have been a great start!

JONES IS A DOUCHEBAG!!!!

Here's a good post by Killtown with some video clips worth watching.

Speaking of douchebags.

Will you debunkers ever concede one 9/11 oddity, even one as glaring as WTC 7? Hell, your "Official" report doesn't even come out until next month (or has it been pushed back another couple years?)

I think the WTC 7 has been explained thoroughly by EXPERTS so no we dont need your so called nutbar douchebag "experts"

BTW....
Unlike your crack headed film school rejects a REAL REPORT can take MANY YEARS when it is the truth you are after unlike a SHITTY bullshit documentary only out to self promote.

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:26, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:28, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

So why is WTC7's "demolition" so quiet?

CHF the answer is soooo painfully obvoius that only a government shill would not get it!!

THEY USED QUIET EXPLOSIVES!!!

This was developed to keep expert detectives like Avery and Bermass off of their tails!!

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:32, Blogger Stevew said...

"Some government reports have also identified a significant presence of odd substances - including sulfur and zinc - and have noted that there is no obvious explanation for their presence. Jones said sulfur and zinc are part of a typical thermite fingerprint."

A year later LOL, the girders were cut with torches that could account for some, all the wall board, a lot of steel in the building has Zinc plating. A building that large could have thousands of different materials in it not to mention the compounds created by the fires.

It is astonishing that these fools get any ink, anyone with a single diget IQ could see thru these frauds

 
At 30 October, 2006 17:46, Blogger HidariMak said...

A year later LOL, the girders were cut with torches that could account for some, all the wall board, a lot of steel in the building has Zinc plating. A building that large could have thousands of different materials in it not to mention the compounds created by the fires.

Exactly. Plenty of sulpher in gypsum (drywall). So in short, government reports found evidence of walls in the remains of a building, and can't figure out why. The Loosers are so easily confused, aren't they?

 
At 30 October, 2006 18:57, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Nutbar Troother logic:

"Well gee sulpher in gypsum (drywall) wont sell as many books, videos, t-shirts etc....

HEY I GOT IT...."

 
At 30 October, 2006 19:42, Blogger CHF said...

Andrew,

if demolition charges went of on 9/11 everyone in southern New York would have heard them.

You wouldn't have a guy here and a guy there telling you about the noise.

 
At 30 October, 2006 20:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

You argument against the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is so pathetic and offensive that it re-enforces my behavior in rarely commenting here: obviously no amount of evidence and discussion will elicit any reasonable response on your part.

You remind me of Ken Mehlman. He's being paid to be an idiot. Are you being paid as well?

My Blog

My Podcast

 
At 30 October, 2006 20:33, Blogger Manny said...

Would it have been a better article if the writer called the Jones "that douchebag"

Seeing as how Denver is in the same state as the fictional South Park, it wouldn't have killed them to call him a retard.

 
At 30 October, 2006 21:46, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Gee BG just waiting for the right moment to post a link to your bullshit log I bet.

Douchebag

 
At 30 October, 2006 22:41, Blogger tym said...

If anything, Building 7 is the odd duck of the WTC complex that doesn't really even fit into the conspiracy. The insurance payout failed to match the building's reconstruction costs, plus 5 years of lost revenue and all the lost property. It was such an afterthought to the whole day that it added absolutely no value to the "psychological attack" - It's not like the Patriot Act and War Powers Resolution would've been 2 or 3 votes shy had it not been for that 1 extra building that collapsed 7 hours after the fact, killing nobody.

So what are we left with? Crude analysis of a building that was barely photographed in a way that fully showcases the damage and blatant lying on collapse times (seismographic data actually has it taking longer than either Twin Tower to fall).

It's cited as a conventional demolition yet none of the hundreds of people in the area heard blasting caps and the entire fire department seemed pretty convinced hours in advance that the building was going to fall on it's own and it was only a matter of time.

There's a reason every network in the country had a camera pointed at the building and was just waiting to cut to that shot as soon as it started to fall.

WTC-7 isn't the smoking gun of the conspiracy, it's one gigantic plothole.

 
At 30 October, 2006 22:51, Blogger Richard said...

WTC-7 isn't the smoking gun of the conspiracy, it's one gigantic plothole.

Quoted for truth

 
At 31 October, 2006 04:44, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"Kid gloves...right... Would it have been a better article if the writer called the Jones "that douchebag" and made sure to get in as much tired sarcasm as possible?"

If a scumbag says slavery was good for black people, he'd be roundly condemned. Why should some America-hating traitorous scumbag like Jones and all his shithead friends get pampered?

 
At 31 October, 2006 05:49, Blogger pomeroo said...

I keep asking how the collapse of WTC 7 fits into the overall scheme of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Do the loons ever stop to think that...uh, I just noticed that the phrasing of the question pretty much gives away the answer.

 
At 31 October, 2006 05:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

o why is WTC7's "demolition" so quiet?

Listen to the audio from 9/11 Eyewitness just prior to the collape of WTC 7. There is nothing quiet about it.

 
At 31 October, 2006 05:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

If anything, Building 7 is the odd duck of the WTC complex that doesn't really even fit into the conspiracy.

Yeah I guess we shouldn't investigate it at all. Tell the NIST not to test for a possible CD scenario. The only ducks that weren't odd were the occupants of WTC 7.

I think the WTC 7 has been explained thoroughly by EXPERTS

Well no it has not or there would be no need for the NIST investigation. But I can already tell you of the outcome of that report and I'm not an expert.

 
At 31 October, 2006 06:39, Blogger Stevew said...

It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.

 
At 31 October, 2006 06:42, Blogger Stevew said...

HidariMak
Indeed they are. Why don't they give us scientific explanations and facts to explain their theories? All they do is make cliams but never explain them or give facts to back up their claims. I wonder why that is?

 
At 31 October, 2006 06:53, Blogger tym said...

Yeah I guess we shouldn't investigate it at all. Tell the NIST not to test for a possible CD scenario. The only ducks that weren't odd were the occupants of WTC 7.

I never said that. I just pointed out it doesn't fit at all with the conspiracy and all it really does is raise questions.

The only reason controlled demolition scenarios are being investigated is because that was the ONLY thing that the twin tower reports were really attacked on: A bunch of loons saying "Well you didn't even look at this!"

If anything the occupants of building hurt the CT in my opinion. It's kindof hard to make money when you blow up a shitload of your own stuff.

Well no it has not or there would be no need for the NIST investigation. But I can already tell you of the outcome of that report and I'm not an expert.

That's because they've already released preliminary updates of their working hypothesis. In layman's terms, it's relatively simple to explain the collapse. A shitload of debris fell, gashed the southern face of the tower and the southwest corner nearly 25% of the way into the building and ignited multiple severe fires that went unfought largely for seven hours. The building was a unique design and incredibly vulnerable to the type of damage sustained and it just gave way.


It's important to examine all of these collapses from a structural analysis angle so we learn what went wrong and, god forbid, if any other building should sustain similiar damage, whether or not we should waste effort by sending a few hundred firefighters into a building that is eventually gonna come down no matter what they do.

The information can also be implemented into future designs and any possible renovations to make sure this type of thing can never happen again.

It's just like how the 9/11 commission and other audits have analyzed how our intelligence and law enforcement strategies failed us. The NIST reports are being done to show how our own architecture failed us.

 
At 31 October, 2006 07:11, Blogger remdem said...

including sulfur and zinc

I'm not sure if the truthers realize this, but sulfer is a big component of drywall. Now, I imagine some will moan, "BUT REMDEM, WHAT ABOUT TEH ZINC?!" Zinc is used to rust proof steel, and let's take a guess what the buildings were supported by ... steel! So, it makes sense in a rust proofed, drywall'd building, that if such a building collapsed, we'd see some sulfer and zinc floating around.

As a sidenote, if you demolished my house, you're find a lot of wires, but that doesn't necessarily mean my house was rigged with C4 now, does it?

Second, how does rigging a building with explosives make it fall at free fall speeds? Explosives, sorry to break it to you, do not make a building fall significantly faster, it may shave a cool 0.3 to 0.5 seconds off of the collapse time. Explosives just do not behave as the truthers would have you believe.

 
At 31 October, 2006 07:52, Blogger CHF said...

Apparently BG and Swing Dangler have never seen a controlled demolition before.

The explosives needed to down a 47 story building would have echoed all over southern NYC.

Instead all we get is..."well this video shows it" and "this guy heard it."

EVERYONE WOULD HAVE HEARD IT!

 
At 31 October, 2006 08:06, Blogger Stevew said...

Chf
Do you think they will ever give proof to back up their theories?

 
At 31 October, 2006 08:44, Blogger Larry said...

Sulfur - the WTC complex was dry-walled with sulfur-based drywall.

On the demolition of WTC7 - no seismic recordings had any pre-collapse blasts. Were they not only INVISIBLE BOMBS, but also SILENT EXPLOSIONS?

These fools need to give it up.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:02, Blogger Alex said...

Ok, so if they couldn't have been bombs, they must have been Star Wars lasers! Judy Wood was right!

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:13, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

A shitload of debris fell, gashed the southern face of the tower and the southwest corner nearly 25% of the way into the building and ignited multiple severe fires that went unfought largely for seven hours.

Causing asymetrical damage which in turn caused a symetrical collapse. Yep got it.

EVERYONE WOULD HAVE HEARD IT!
Didn't everyone hear explosions prior to WTC 1 and 2, but yet CD is not an option there. Can't use it on one without the other.

There is a reason there is a disclaimer in the NIST reports that states the reports can't be used as evidence in a trial. Perhaps because the evidence ie. reports could be scientifically destroyed upon cross-examination of said report.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5)

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001;)

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:27, Blogger Alex said...

Another swing and miss by our friend swing-dangler. The damage wasn't exactly symmetrical. You need to remember that a collapse happens in 3 dimensions, and your favorite video only shows 2 of them. Look at pictures of the wreckage and you'll realize that the building actually fell towards the twin towers.

Ofcourse, even symmetrical collapse is possible from that type of damage. Look at the twin towers - the initial damage to them wasn't exactly symmetrical either. The design of the building in this case plays a bigger role in the collapse than they type and location of damage sustained.

Oh, and please don't ever quote Barnett as an authority again. It makes you look even dumber than you actually are.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:30, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder...
In downtown during a clear day a clap of thunder! I wonder if that might be the explosive sound everyone is begging for? Man you guys ignore so much evidence for CTD in all three towers that it begs the question, what is real to you?

Nice job Andrew!

The Screwloosechange Game:
What happens in these forums is that whenever a non-OS'er brings up facts or evidence that contradict the official story, the poster, or the source is completely attacked rather than the fact itself. Or the post is completely ignored. Ridicule is an immediate response, again disregarding the evidence. It is so predictable to see how the OS'ers respond especially with the quiet explosives comments. Both you and I posted evidence of explosive sounds taking place and you see the exact response. Name calling, ridicule, and sarcasm.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:31, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:46, Blogger pomeroo said...

I love it when the loons pretend that the noises produced by collapsing buildings--hmmm, you think they might sound like explosions?--prove controlled demolition.

Morons. Simply morons.

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The damage wasn't exactly symmetrical.
Ahhh Alex, intelligence shining through! Reread my post sherlock, I didn't say that it was. "To that one theme song...I see your true brillance shining through!"

Also, the quote in particular OF STEEL EVAPORATING was from engineers originally in an article from the New York Times. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482I

I don't care who data mines the info, Barnett or your mom, and reposts it. The information still remains vaid.
Now how can steel be evaporated by fires?

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pomoroo
Apparently you can't follow the logical sequence of an eyewitness statement. Also if you compare what is said below along with the video/audio evidence you would certainly reexamine your own criteria for being a moron.

we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...

 
At 31 October, 2006 09:57, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Swing
Why do you just read and take things out of context then spin it.
Where has anybody said that steel was evaporated by fire? Show us the link does not work.

It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall. The history pgm had a history of WTC7 and showed this to be absolutiy true.
You don't think this could have contributed?

You babble on and on asking the same dumb questions that have been answered by real experts. Why don't you give us scientific explanations and facts to explain your theories?

Give us your qualifications

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?

Tell us about all your experience with building design

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:12, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew
Feel free to read the article in the New York Times about the engineers who were quoted in that article. Or place the quote into Google and start searching.
See the New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7
WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated...

Do I have the qualifications you ask for? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. If I did, would it matter? Nope. Cause I wasn't there.
Does attacking my authority on a particular subject retract the facts? Nope. Does not being a qualified expert prevent me from restating what others have stated? Nope.
Are you an expert in the said field? Don't care. Were you there to examine the debris field? Doubt it, but I don't care. See every OS'er on here likes to re-quote, restate, repost, what their experts have said to defend their point of view. Hell even Alex is a specialist in receiving torture!
So although I answered your questions about qualifications, your questions are a simple moot point without addressing the facts in question. Try again with another arguement fallacy, maybe you'll get better at debating an issue, cause frankly your terrible at it.

Since when does asking a question about steel being evaporated turn into a theory?

You want scientific facts? Go to the FEMA report http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf. Go ask the NIST why they are investigating a CD scenario. Go interview those experts.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:19, Blogger Jay said...

Go ask the NIST why they are investigating a CD scenario. Go interview those experts.

Maybe they are because u idiots keep yelling it was brought down by explosives.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:30, Blogger Triterope said...

If the scientific report does address demolition, it proves the validity of the question.

If the scientific report doesn't address demolition, they're paid shills involved in a coverup, thus proving the validity of the question.

Remember: every possible outcome proves the conspiracy.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:32, Blogger Yatesey said...

Sing Dangler-

You've had 5 years to ask questions, now go DO SOMETHING about it! Must feel nice, sitting behind your computer, whining and carrying on, but in the end what have you really accomplished? Nothing.

Get on with your life. Nothing will EVER come of this silly little movement.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:33, Blogger Jay said...

Yup, it doesn't matter what NIST says, they can never be right. All the NIST bashers will be jumping for joy if they find evidence of a CD, but Bash them some more if they prove no evidence of CD.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:48, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Maybe they are because u idiots keep yelling it was brought down by explosives.
Well Jesus H. Christ then they should go back to the moon because nutjobs keep saying we didn't go to the moon.
What kind of sense does that make??

No it is because they don't know! For the sake of your own sanity, read what they have said about it.

Triterope Well I certainly agree with part of your statement, but I've never claimed 'they' were shills or anything of the nature. Please don't apply that reasoning to me. Although it may work for some who question the offical story, it will does not apply to me.

Remember: every possible outcome proves the conspiracy. I'm not sure how that applies to the situation. I guess the best way around that is a truly bi-partisan expert body with no political connections to anyone in this administration. And for certain lets make sure the hypothesis can be reproduced as well to prove any particular theory.

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

You've had 5 years to ask questions, now go DO SOMETHING about it!

Oh I have. Thanks for asking. I do what any member of a representative democracy should do if they feel there is injustice that needs to be addressed.

By the way, why the attack dog stance?
Do I bring up some uncomfortable information for you?

And based upon your logic, why are you responding?

 
At 31 October, 2006 10:54, Blogger Stevew said...

Nice tapdance swing and you have yet to post facts. Perhaps if you post real facts instead of BS there could be a debate

You have not addressed anything I have said and your NYT link does not work and it was probably BS like everything you post.

Why don't you give us scientific explanations and facts to explain your theories?

You date the FEMA report of 2002. Piks show it was not a symetrical collapse. There are so many things that could sound like explosions, that it hardly proof. You might want to get up to date

I ask questions to see if you are qualified to give a real assessment or do you just C&P from the whak sites, seems to be the latter. Since you are not then all you are is a parrot that knows nothing and it shows. If you want to make claims you should have the knowledge to understand what it is you claim. The "I am just asking questions is an excuse you no knowledge fools have been using from the get go, it does not work anymore.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:00, Blogger Yatesey said...

Oh I have. Thanks for asking. I do what any member of a representative democracy should do if they feel there is injustice that needs to be addressed.

By the way, why the attack dog stance?
Do I bring up some uncomfortable information for you?

And based upon your logic, why are you responding?


Nothing you and your little friends say will ever make me uncomfortable, I find all of you very amusing.

To be honest, Swing, I find some of the claims to be intriguing, but when I try and sort out the "why", the "how", and the "how many people involved",(ignore evidence, because your side's evidence is no better than the official side, everyone has an agenda, and everyone will spin something to make it work in their favor, it's human condition)--the whole "theory" structure collapses like a house of cards.

Therefore, just thinking in terms of logic and common sense, it's impossible and completely illogical for a conspiracy to go down the way you and your crew claim.


But keep posting, because it provides me lots of smiles and laughter throughout my day!

P.S.-I responded that way, this time, because I wanted to see if you would ever put your money where your mouth is.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:05, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Didn't everyone hear explosions prior to WTC 1 and 2, but yet CD is not an option there.

Huh?

No, everyone didn't hear explosiions prior to WTC 1 and 2 coming down. Where do you come up with this shit?

You need to seriously read up on controlled demolitions, how they work and what they look/sound like. You really do.

Maybe you should talk to some structural engineers and present them with your "evidence."

I've challened a few twoofers to contact structural engineers. I've even presented them with phone numbers in some cases. And yet they all refuse.

Do you consider yourself smarter than the world's structural emngineering community, swing?

If not, then maybe you should call a few and LISTEN TO THEM.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:14, Blogger Stevew said...

Chf
That is why I asked the questions just to get an idea if he was believable, you saw his answers.

He never addressed anything, just came back with the same toofer BS.
chk this

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/911_conspiracy_.html

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew
Did you not read my post? Of course I answered everything.

Please restate the theory you think I'm pushing for? Are you referring to the same CD theory that the NIST is looking into.

Will you list your credentials that qualifies you to speak on the matter to defend why the NIST wants to test for CD?
What degrees do you have that give you the right to defend the official story?
Nevermind, please list a site where I can see all of your scanned credentials along with your name and professional standing in any organizations you belong to.
Quit using that tired line of arguement cause it can be flipped so easily.

So based upon your logic, no one outside the field of study can ask legitimate questions. Why do you want to limit free speech based upon expertise alone? Oh wait, because you have yet to address the issue that the NIST is going to investigate!

See the thing is with you OS'ers, the NIST report brings up just a question of CD that hey just maybe it was imploded. By doing so it threatens your whole world view, your value system, and everything you believe in regarding 9/11. It also lends support to questions regarding the whole 9/11 event which is completely opposite of your own views, but this time the question isn't from a nutbar theorist, but a goddam government organization and apparently you can't handle that fact.

It was probably bs...
That is all you have to offer to the NY Times? Is that how you address FACTS that threaten your view?

In summary Steve, I don't hold any of those titles that you want me to address and again it doesn't matter.
If you want facts and such, go read the reports yourself. One last thing, stop attacking the person cause that is all you have left to stand on, and that is as tired as your other fallacies.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Again another how to say nothing in 500 words. I have made what I said very clear, the fact that you can't address anything is not supriseing. Of course it matters, it goes to credibility, of which you have none.

I have proven my case with facts that you can't dissprove but all you post is mindless babble, it you could prove me wrong it would be in your best interest to do so, so you would not look like an absolute moron.

Why don't you give us scientific explanations and facts to explain your theories? Why have you not addressed anything I have said with facts

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:37, Blogger remdem said...

Swing, you still haven't answered me on how explosives would make the building fall at free fall, when all the demolition videos I watch, even the blotched ones, do not support this. Explosives do not make a building fall faster! Even besides the noise a Controlled Demolition would have made, it remains that short of the Hand of God/Jehova/Shiva/Allah/Invisible Pink Unicorn/Captain Cook coming down and smashing the buildings, if the buildings fell from the fires or explosives, they'd both fall significantly longer than free fall time, as the truthers insist.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings

So? What else is new? If the engineers were in complete agreement, I'd think something was up, as normally engineers won't give an official statement on the color of their socks without pulling up their pants and checking.

Ahhh Alex, intelligence shining through! Reread my post sherlock, I didn't say that it was.

True, you did not explicitly say it was, however, you did say that the asymmetrical collapse was illogical ('Causing asymetrical damage which in turn caused a symetrical collapse. Yep got it.') That statement implicitly implies you believe the collapse was symmetrical, since you're trying to conform the 'official story' to fit your version of the event. Thus, Alex is correct in that you did imply the collapse was symmetrical. Or something.

The "I am just asking questions" is an excuse you no knowledge fools have been using from the get go, it does not work anymore.

Well, in defense, that is how most science gets started, something happens and the scientists or whomever starts asking questions about it. I believe the key difference is that most truthers don't really go to the next step, proving their claims, they just get stuck in an eternal loop between the initial observation and data collection.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:41, Blogger Triterope said...

I've never claimed 'they' were shills or anything of the nature. Please don't apply that reasoning to me.

I speak to 9/11 Denial in general. If you want your views to be addressed individually, then kindly explain precisely what you think happened. If you're going to Just Ask Questions, I'll continue lumping you with the rest of the JAQ-offs.

As evidence of my point, it took me all of two seconds to find Jim Hoffman saying "A key critique of NIST's work lies in the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis."

And now you're arguing that NIST's decision to consider controlled demolition validates that theory. Heads, the conspiracy is true; tails, the official version is false.

I guess the best way around that is a truly bi-partisan expert body with no political connections to anyone in this administration.

And the minute they do, you conspiracy believers will just invent some "Bush connection" that allows you to disregard the entire study when it doesn't come down on your side. Just like you did with FEMA, NIST, Popular Mechanics, and every other study that's been done by objective bodies of experts. The Chertoff thing was particularly pathetic.

On a related note, did anyone catch the New York Times article on Philip Zelikow? Apparently he's not quite the Bush mouthpiece the conspiratards claim he is whenever they want to discredit the 9/11 Commission report.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:47, Blogger remdem said...

no one outside the field of study can ask legitimate questions. Why do you want to limit free speech based upon expertise alone?

Actually, the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics states in its Fundamental Canons:

"Engineers Shall, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, Perform services only in the areas of their competence"

Obviously, it does matter, A LOT, what your field of study is, because in some cases in court, these codes have about the same force as law, and I'd get in seriously deep shit if I ran around pretending to be an electrical engineer.

I can see your next argument:"BUT REMDEM, THAT IS NOT TRUE. BECAUSE THAT IS ONLY FOR THAT SOCIETY IF YOU JOIN, IF YOU DONT IT DOESNT APPLY HAHA YOUR STUPID." The sad fact is that these codes are so general that I believe they'd be used as precedent even if you weren't in this or that society.

Whew, what a tangent.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No, everyone didn't hear explosions prior to WTC 1 and 2 coming down.

So the on the scene news broadcasts, the firefighters, the audio and the video, the radio reports, they were all hearing what? Must have been all the bodies hitting the ground from the jumpers. Eyewitnesses reports count for absolutely nothing in your world of investigations,I guess.

scientific explanations Now Steve your appealing to supporters to defend your stance. Come on bro you can do better than cry help.
Well at this point they are hypothesis. So again your request is moot.

Therefore, just thinking in terms of logic and common sense, it's impossible and completely illogical for a conspiracy to go down the way you and your crew claim. I guess the same could be applied to a number of issues but they still grew into reality. Ohh say the Nazi holocaust. Now that was a conspiracy of grand portions that took place. Or maybe creating a bomb to destroy an entire city? Oh wait that happened as well. Or maybe a conspiracy to start a war? Oh that has happened on a number of occasions,
I wouldn't say it is impossible at all.
Trying to use psychology to discredit or disprove one side of an issue or another is a fallacious attempt.

And another thing, I don't have a crew and I don't grasp at a lot of the straws out there, but it is hard to argue with the NIST!
The Why and the How are the real questions. The who is best left to a criminal investigation.

One last thing, there are certainly a lot of high profile politicians who are joining that 'crew' you speak of. I wonder why?

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:55, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

"Engineers Shall, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, Perform services only in the areas of their competence"

Don't see anything about asking questions which is what my post was about.

 
At 31 October, 2006 11:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I have proven my case with facts...

What is your case anyway?

I speculate that WTC 7 was collapsed due to CTD. NIST is going to investigate that theory is well. What is your point?

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

WTC 7 looks very similiar to the following:

http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/
0318implosion1/index.html

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:09, Blogger Stevew said...

Why do you continue to spin and tapdance?
Opinion, speculation and conjecture is not proof.
I need no help dismantiling fools like you
Why don't you give us just an explanations and facts to explain your theories?
Why have you not addressed anything I have said with facts

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:18, Blogger remdem said...

Anyone can ask questions, but if you expect anyone to act on these questions, you're fooling yourself. The passage is relevant because questioning and investigating is considered a 'service', such as giving expert testimony at a trial. Therefore, it follows that legimate questions can only really be asked/answered by the experts in that field.

I wouldn't run around trying to ask questions like "Why must I stop to let that ambulance through?" or "Why must police officers carry guns if the public already has gun laws" because I'm not an expert in those fields, and I trust those experts to know what they're doing.

Also, I'm still waiting to hear how explosives will make something fall faster. Although, I am not sure if it was you, Swing, or someone else who brought that point up. I'd just like to hear some thoughts, anyway. Even if we aren't 'experts' in these fields, I'd like a cool armchair quarterback opinion of what happened.

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

And now you're arguing that NIST's decision to consider controlled demolition validates that theory.

Uhhh doesn't it validate that theory?
If they don't examine a theory, that doesn't make it true or false, it simply shows they didn't examine the theory which still makes the theory plausible.
If they examine the theory, prove it couldn't not have happened beyond all scientific doubt, then so be it.

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Explain how a 47 story building could be wired with explosives and no body notice. CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. the current world record

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

NY Times article...

http://www.geocities.com/
streakingobject/
07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:42, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Come on Steve quit begging the question. Your comparing two different items there. And besides are you an expert on CD? Naww didn't think so.

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:47, Blogger Triterope said...

Uhhh doesn't it validate that theory?

Forget it. You're obviously incapable of grasping my point.

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:50, Blogger Stevew said...

Stop tapdancing and address the issues. You speculate CD, here was what it took

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:51, Blogger Stevew said...

As usual your links don't work

 
At 31 October, 2006 12:58, Blogger Alex said...

Theoretically Steve, it could be done with much less work as long as you don't care how it falls. What seems to have happened in WTC7 is that the central columns failed and the resulting collapse in the middle caused the remaining columns to fail as well. All of the failure however occurred on a few of the bottom floors. The rest of the building was demolished by gravity. So, if you wanted to create a similar effect using explosives, it could be done with just one to two charges per column, and you'd only have to place them on the central columns. The reason so many charges and so much det cord is used in most CD's is because the company hired to do the job wants to control the fall of the building and break it up for ease of cleanup. If you don't care how it falls, the job gets much easier.

Ofcourse, the real question here is "why bother". It makes no sense to demolish it. And there's no reason to doubt that the buildings collapse was due to damage and fire. So, in the end, believing that WTC7 was intentionally demolished is just an act of faith. You either believe it or you don't. There's absolutely zero evidence for it, but that's never stopped any religion before.

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:03, Blogger Stevew said...

Quite correct It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter.

The point as I am sure you know, is no matter what there would have had to been a lot of work done on an almost identicaly sized building with out anybody noticing

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:07, Blogger tym said...

Uhhh doesn't it validate that theory?
If they don't examine a theory, that doesn't make it true or false, it simply shows they didn't examine the theory which still makes the theory plausible.
If they examine the theory, prove it couldn't not have happened beyond all scientific doubt, then so be it.


Again, you're missing the issue. The only somewhat valid criticism of the NIST report on the twin towers themselves has been the fact that they did not explicitly research any controlled demolition scenarios.

Given the absence of corroborating audio/visual evidence to support such a scenario and the fact that the NIST isn't really interested in put options, wargames, northwoods, etc, etc but rather the actual mechanical science behind the collapse itself, there's an astonishing lack of physical evidence to support any hypothesis of anything other than impact and fire damage from the two planes bringing down the twin towers.

They were interested in diagramming how it could've happened with the known confirmed variables and found that it wasn't even just some flukey occurrence that could've not happened but that it was more or less inevitable.

Conspiracy Theorists said "Oh come on, they didn't even examine any other possibilities" while conveniently ignoring the fact that a large portion of their own theories rests on the fact that it was impossible (or at least highly improbable) for the buildings to fall the way they did with the "official story."

So now the NIST is working on diagramming out in excruciating detail just what happened to WTC-7. Again, despite a lack of any solid physical verifiable evidence that there were any actual explosive devices planted in the buildings, they are basically pre-empting criticism by trying to account for some more looney-toon type theories about what happened in addition to explaining what the facts show based on their analysis.

It's sortof admirable that they're trying and think that maybe just maybe if we show them exactly what it would've took to cause a collapse with explosive charges and get the building to fall the same way it did at the same time it did (not many explosive elements on this planet really survive widespread fires for multiple hours without going off), that maybe people will be forced to accept the reality that WTC-7, even if there was a true conspiracy theory, is not a part of it.

Give the NIST credit for having their hearts in the right place. They're trying to address conspiracy theories HEAD ON in the hopes that maybe people will see irrefutable proof and actually reconsider.

Unfortunately conspiracy theorists aren't really adept at critical thinking and processing information which is outside the bubble of their pre-conceived notions about what went on. So it will ultimately be dismissed by the same trickery like relying on footage from bad angles to deny the amount of damage sustained, unclear video angles which put the collapse time somewhere around 1/3 of what it actually was and the old standard of just saying "what it looked like" without the qualification of "to my untrained eye."

Or it will just be ignored outright.

Fortuntely by 2011 or so, when we're on Loose Change version 35 or so.....my theory is that the theory will have modified enough by that point that Dylan's conspiracy will actually be that a group of Al Qaeda operatives, under direct orders from Al Qaeda and ONLY Al Qaeda, outwitted airport security, boarded and hijacked 4 planes, crashing 3 of em into prominent targets and a 4th one into a field in Pennsylvania following a passenger revolt and that the damage from the first two planes mortally wounded two giant skyscrapers which collapsed shortly after scattering thousands of tons of debris over a wide radius, damaging numerous buildings and fatally wounding WTC-3 which was in ruins after the South Tower came down and WTC-7 which succumbed to the damage around 7 hours later.

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:30, Blogger Jay said...

Hi Swing. Thx for that link.

let me quote something from it for u.

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.


And another quote.

With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.

Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.

"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:39, Blogger pomeroo said...

The incomparable and indispensable Mark Roberts has produced 134 pages (PDF format) on WTC 7. Hasn't anybody noticed?

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:39, Blogger Jay said...

OMG i just read the replies there.. Theres actually someone suggesting that WTC 7 was hit by a missile....

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:47, Blogger Jay said...

And to think i knew most of the theories out there....

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:48, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Do you feel you know more about buildings than structural engineers?

Yes or no....

And since you seem to value eyewitness accounts so much, what do you make of this: http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

Wow...if we take his words 100% literally the guy is claiming to have seen a train! I guess we should investigate that, huh?

Speaking of witnesses, about 100 people saw a passenger jet zooming towards the Pentagon. But those are "unrealiable" witnesses, right?

 
At 31 October, 2006 13:54, Blogger Jay said...

This is a report from PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110035.PDF

We were crazy to stay there because you still had this thing about airplanes going to hit other buildings, And the buildings around you weren?t safe because the building I was hiding next to, that one was leaning and I heard that one collapsed to.

 
At 31 October, 2006 14:21, Blogger CHF said...

Yeah but Jay, controlled demolitions always lean the target building over well before knocking it down.

I don't know how...it just does.

So that's why witnesses and firefighter transit readings indicated that WTC7 was leaning over.

So while any semi-intelligent person would think that a leaning building points to a structural failure that built up over several hours from damage, it's actually perfectly in line with a demolition if you think like a twoofer...

DUHHHH!!!!!!!!

 
At 31 October, 2006 15:22, Blogger shawn said...

obviously no amount of evidence and discussion will elicit any reasonable response on your part.


Irony.

BG, although you were the least dumb of the conspiracy theorists, you were still (and apparently still are) a moron.

There is NO evidence for any inside job on 9/11. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

You are the ones who disregard evidence, I wish you numbskulls would realize that.

 
At 31 October, 2006 21:43, Blogger Jay said...

LIEUTENANT WILLIAM MELARANGO

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110045.PDF

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center.

 
At 31 October, 2006 21:46, Blogger CHF said...

Well obviously that means the cop planted the bombs.

 
At 01 November, 2006 05:18, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Anyways, as far as WTC7 goes


Was the demolition so quiet?


Compared to a demolition, yes.

God knows you chaps watch enough videos, you'd think you'd have noticed by now

 
At 02 November, 2006 06:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 02 November, 2006 06:51, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

and there's no reason to doubt that the buildings collapse was due to damage and fire.

Sure there is reason. Hence the NIST investigation!

You guys can defend your theory as much as you want to, but the point is THE NIST is investigating a potential CD and if it is proven beyond doubt then the case points to an inside job. Or at least terrorists who inflitrated the building and rigged it to collapse.

I'm currently discussing with a building construction engineer from Purdue University with whom I work the collapse of WTC 7. Funny thing is she didn't even know about WTC 7. I will get back with you on the results.
Preliminary fact from Ms. C: asymetrical damage will not cause a symetrical collapse as what appears to be the case with WTC 7, which confirms my earlier post.

Don't ask for her name, because I won't post it. Don't ask from her work place, I won't post it. However I will state what she states as fact and what she states is fiction.

 
At 02 November, 2006 06:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Wow...if we take his words 100% literally the guy is claiming to have seen a train! I guess we should investigate that, huh?

Ahh Mr. Sarcasm you fail to follow the timeline of the statement itself. Notice in your own quote mining ..and then...and then.. see that is English language used to designate a timelife of events...and then. So see your post actually supports the claim there was a loud explosion BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. Thanks!

 
At 02 November, 2006 06:59, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Some key events that point to CD of WTC 7:


* The roofs dips inward
* Explosions are visible running up on the right side
* Explosions are visible in the front
* Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail at the same time)
* Falls at near free-fall speed
* Falls into its own footprint without damaging surrounding buildings.

 
At 02 November, 2006 09:18, Blogger Jay said...

Swing Dangler u numbnuts, Chf was refering to someone that saw the north tower go down, not WTC7.

Maybe u should have opened that link and read the entire thing...

 
At 02 November, 2006 09:41, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

That's alright Jay,(numbnuts?? WTF) you simply ignore evidence pointing to a controlled demolition which was the second post on this blog. Keep the blinders on, bloke.

 
At 02 November, 2006 12:07, Blogger Triterope said...

THE NIST is investigating a potential CD and if it is proven beyond doubt then the case points to an inside job.

And what if they find no evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory? What then?

 
At 02 November, 2006 13:06, Blogger Alex said...

Preliminary fact from Ms. C: asymetrical damage will not cause a symetrical collapse as what appears to be the case with WTC 7, which confirms my earlier post.

Except that the collapse wasn't symmetrical, and you admitted as much in a different thread.

So, why do you continue to lie, and lie KNOWINGLY?

How about showing your engineer friend some videos of the collapse from different angles? Or maybe some pictures of the resulting rubble?

 
At 02 November, 2006 14:12, Blogger Richard said...

Some key events that point to CD of WTC 7:


* The roofs dips inward


As opposed to what exactly?


* Explosions are visible running up on the right side

No, puffs of DEBRIS are seen coming out of a FEW windows. Look at a controlled demolition:
Click Me

Notice that the charges ripple up the building and create bright flashes. There are also many MANY flashes not just a few. All of these charges also go off BEFORE the building collapses not durring like the towers or Building 7

* Explosions are visible in the front
Wrong again, look at my above point.

* Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail at the same time)

Wow, I didn't know you had x-ray vision. Have any proof of all joints failing at the same time? With the video evidence of the mechanical penthouse collapsing first and the seismic readings its pretty damn clear the building was collapsing inside before there were any signs on the outside.

* Falls at near free-fall speed

Watch the penthouse fall first and then try to tell me that it happened at "free-fall speed."

* Falls into its own footprint without damaging surrounding buildings.

No, not really. There are plenty of pics that show otherwise but your clearly to set in your beliefs.

 
At 02 November, 2006 23:13, Blogger insidejob said...

As opposed to what exactly?

there's actually a "crimp" in the center of the building, which is a trademark of controlled demolition.

No, puffs of DEBRIS are seen coming out of a FEW windows.

*SIGH* The puffs of "debris" occur prior to collapse. and in the collapse of the towers, the jets of "debris" occur significantly before the collapse reaches the respective jets, otherwise we WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN THE JETS. DER DA DER!

Have any proof of all joints failing at the same time?

um, how bout the fact that the building maintained perfect radial symmetry as it collapsed?

Watch the penthouse fall first and then try to tell me that it happened at "free-fall speed."

he said it happened at near (in fact VERY near) to freefall speed, and it did.

No, not really. There are plenty of pics that show otherwise but your clearly to set in your beliefs.

yes, really. damage to surrounding buildings by WTC 7 was minor, as would clearly result from the fact that it maintained radial symmetry as it fell upon itself.

there was also partially evaporated steel. hmmm, can hydrocarbon fires get hot enough to evaporate steel? don't think so.


http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 03 November, 2006 06:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

And what if they find no evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory? What then?

Uhh you said it what then? Well good question.

1. I would hope for a critical reevaulation of all steel structures throughout the world.

2. Removal of all fuel types from said structures.

3.Revamping current building designs to resist collapse based upon damage and fire combined.

4. Retrofitting all steel high-rise structures so that these events could never happen again.

5.The NIST report used as evidence in a court of law so that it can be cross examined and defended by the writers. This won't happen however because of the law that prevents it from being used as evidence in a court of law. You would think it would be allowed as evidence but evidently not.
The taxpayers of New York City might have a lawsuit to sue the designers of the building for building a failed structure and the resulting costs of its failure. The structure should have been built to resist fire and damage at the same time.

 
At 03 November, 2006 06:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

A proposal for the Controlled Demolitions Inc. and other implosion industry leaders:
The Use of Jet Fuel and Diseal Fuel To Demolish Buildings: Part 1

1. It would be much quicker to bring the building down using fuel. Instead of taking weeks and months to wire a building to be demolished, you just light a fire and let it burn for 7 hours or for 1 hour or so or so and whaallaah!

2. It would be a lot safer to deal with kerosene because you can still put that fire out, but if C-4 and det cord is touched off, ouchy!

3. Success rate! 3 incidents 3 successful collapses!
Ya can't beat 100%! I don't believe the industry has a 100% success rate using explosives.

4. Cost! I could be wrong, but I think the cost of C-4 or whatever explosive is used and weeks of man hours is much higher than that of kerosene. Sorry I don't have a web site to support that cost analysis, just the local gas station. Hell they could get gas pumper Bob to pour the fuel into the building and end the need for engineers and such to plan out how to bring the building down into its own footprint.

5.One problem though, they may need a wrecking ball to put a hole somewhere on the side of the building to make sure the darn thing falls in its own footprint and not to one side or the other. But I would think that would still be much cheaper than the man hours and explosives.

6. Once collapsed, the debris removal would be much easier as most of the material will be turned to dust and evaporated!

7.Oh I thought of another problem. They would have to hang very large nets from the top of the building to catch the tons of material that is ejected horizontally into the air. That way it should minimize collateral damage to surrounding structures. Again though, cheaper than labor and explosive material.

8. They could fill the basements of said buildings with lots of water (very cheap!) before lighting the fires, that way those pesky pools of molten metal wouldn't hamper the debris removal.

This concludes Part 1 for Demolition Companys to bring buildings down. I hope to see enacted shortly for the sake of cost and safety to the industry.

 
At 03 November, 2006 06:59, Blogger Alex said...

there's actually a "crimp" in the center of the building, which is a trademark of controlled demolition.

No, idiot, it's a "trademark" of a central collapse. What initiates the collapse is irrelevant - the "crimp" is simply the outward indication that the central support structure for the building has failed. This is done intentionally in CD in order to bring the building down in a smaller pile, however, in WTC7 it occurred naturally due to the unusual design of the building.

um, how bout the fact that the building maintained perfect radial symmetry as it collapsed?

Not good enough, and once again you showcase your ignorance. Even in a controlled demolition, not all joints fail at the same time. Most CD's will take out the central columns first, in order to cause the "crimp" which you were talking about earlier. So in other words, you're going off what you "think" is happening, and your only evidence is video footage of the outside of the building. That's just pathetic. What kind of credibility do you expect to get with that kind of "research"?

he said it happened at near (in fact VERY near) to freefall speed, and it did.

No, it didn't.

yes, really. damage to surrounding buildings by WTC 7 was minor

You're kidding, right?

there was also partially evaporated steel.

Now I know you're smoking some good shit. How exactly, pray tell, do you find evidence of "evaporated steel"?

Can you also look at an empty glass and find evidence of evaporated water?

 
At 03 November, 2006 08:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

What initiates the collapse is irrelevant

Jesus H. Christ I can't believe you just typed that. That is the key man, what STARTS it.

Did you not read the NYTimes article regarding evaporated steel?

You're kidding, right?
Nope, just saw the pics!
http://killtown.911review.org/
images/wtc7/wtc7_aerial_fema.jpg

Photos are from FEMA of course.
Most of the videos I've seen show close to a 6.5 second collapse time.

A quote from FEMA:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."-FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

Alex, your done.

 
At 03 November, 2006 08:07, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Yet another industry leader that confirms molten steel at WTC 7.
Now tell me folks, how does diesel fuel do that? NEVER MIND, IT CANT!

 
At 03 November, 2006 10:21, Blogger CHF said...

Let's see a pic of this "molten steel."

And please explain how a controlled demolition would account for it.

 
At 03 November, 2006 11:32, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

http://images.google.com/
images?hl=en&q=pictures%20of%
20molten%20steel%20at%20wtc&btnG=
Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=
N&tab=wi

Actually lets go with this question CHF. How can dieseal fuel and office materials create molten metal?

Oh wait they can't. So there must be another explanation. I will let you research what creates molten metal in collapsed buildings. What ever it is, I would recommend using it for future building implosions because it has a 100% success rate!

 
At 03 November, 2006 13:11, Blogger Richard said...

You are aware that steel burns right? Don't skirt the issue, your the one claiming a conspiracy. You have to show us how CD causes evaporated steel.

 
At 03 November, 2006 14:10, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

I see one pic of ALLUMINUM pouring out of the WTC crash zone and another of a piece of metal being picked up by an excavator which is clearly NOT molten.

Read and Learn:

http://www.debunking911.com/
moltensteel.htm

 
At 03 November, 2006 23:49, Blogger insidejob said...

CHF said...

Swing,

I see one pic of ALLUMINUM pouring out of the WTC crash zone


what makes you think it was "alluminum" (sic), when we have a huge chunk of solidified iron, and when there was obviously something present that produced enough heat to evaporate steel?

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 04 November, 2006 05:20, Blogger Jay said...

Inside job, can u show us a picture of that chunk of solidified iron plz.

And im betting u come with the next picture.

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg

Thats the one right?

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

Thats what it actually is.

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport

Just go over all the pictures there and look at your chunk of solidified iron.

 
At 04 November, 2006 17:08, Blogger insidejob said...

your picture is very dim for some reason. hmmm. I wonder why someone would dim the picture. here's a non-dim version:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0605.jpg

your second picture was taken before external debris was cleared off the chunk. the iron oxide forming on the chunk in my picture, the non-dim one, shows that the chunk is largely iron.

anyone who still believes 9/11 wasn't an inside job either hasn't seen all the evidence that has been laid out, has been fooled by phony "debunkings," is lying, or is in denial, or some mixture of those.

see this speech by DRG on google video: "September Eleventh; Should the truth be revealed or concealed?"

the official story is absolutely ridiculous in the face of the facts, and is the real "conspiracy theory."

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 04 November, 2006 17:17, Blogger insidejob said...

CHF said...


And please explain how a controlled demolition would account for it.


A thermate reaction melts steel like a hot knife through butter, and leaves molten iron behind. It also releases aluminum oxide, which can be seen coming from the end of a severed steel beam in a still shot just after the collapse of one of the towers. also, because thermate, a variation of thermite, contains sulfur to strengthen the reaction, it leaves behind traces of sulfur, which were found on ends of beams where evaporation of steel was also found to have occurred.

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 04 November, 2006 18:48, Blogger Triterope said...

anyone who still believes 9/11 wasn't an inside job either hasn't seen all the evidence that has been laid out, has been fooled by phony "debunkings," is lying, or is in denial, or some mixture of those.

This from a guy who's too stupid to make a functioning HTML link.

 
At 05 November, 2006 14:10, Blogger Jay said...

my picyure is Dim?? Are you for real?

If u are refering to the first one, thats the picture from Stephen Jones his paper.

The second picture i posted is from the meteorite how it really looks.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=32
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=33
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=34
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=36
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=37

But yeh by all means, keep denying the truth about the "solified iron" dude.

No wonder u "truthers" are getting a bad reputation.

 
At 06 November, 2006 21:40, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

* The roofs dips inward
[...]
* Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail at the same time)


Interesting!

 
At 07 November, 2006 08:42, Blogger Jay said...

Yeh thats kind of a contradiction in itself.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home