Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Watch Out for Undocumented Assumptions

One trick that the 9-11 Deniers use a lot of is undocumented assumptions. Here's a classic example from a post over at Democratic Underground:

In discussions about physical evidence, specifically about the way the towers fell, the underlying question is whether it's possible for a steel-frame structure to fall in this way -- that is, at nearly free-fall speed -- under any circumstances other than controlled demolition. It seems the structure would have too much strength to collapse so quickly into so many pieces while so much of the energy that would be needed to make that happen was dissipated in other ways.

The usual answer is "Of course it's possible."

So my question to you is this: Can you document any other case of a steel-frame high-rise structure collapsing at nearly free-fall speed, that is, within twice the time that free fall would have taken?


What's the undocumented assumption, class? That's right, the person asking the question is hoping that nobody will notice the assumption that a controlled demolition comes down at "free-fall speed". What they really mean is in free-fall time, or at free-fall acceleration, but more important, they never seem to test this. Look at the Southwark Towers, for example. This is a demolition that is recommended by many 9-11 Deniers as illustrative of a classic controlled demolition; Professor Steven Jones cited it in his Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse paper.

Watching carefully (click on the third icon from the left on the bottom row to see this demolition), I estimated that the roof on the left building started sagging right around 38.24 into the movie, and that the top of the building hit ground at about 45.69. I found it easiest to pause the film and move the slider back and forth to estimate the times.

Thus the duration of the collapse was about 7.45 seconds. From this page we know that the roof of the building was about 98 meters high, or approximately 323 feet. But a building of 323 feet should not take 7.45 seconds to collapse in free fall, it should only take 4.5 seconds by the formula 16*4.5^2=323. Therefore, the Southwark Towers did not collapse in free-fall time.

This video also demonstrates the nonsense about pyroclastic flows supposedly being indicative of controlled demolition. In fact, the pyroclastic flows are just dust being stirred up rapidly by the sudden movement of large objects through the air--like a 26 story building collapsing nearby. There are minor puffs of smoke from the explosions, but they are nothing compared to the dust that the collapse brings up. How can the Deniers pretend otherwise?

63 Comments:

At 16 January, 2007 19:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

I don't want to throw cold water on this post, or say you aren't right (for what it's worth), about the undocumented assumption point.

My issue is that, if you'd told me 5 years ago, that we were going to still be having "he said, she said" debates about controlled demolition, rather than having a serious investigation where experts share their data and explanations, I would have been flabbergasted.

 
At 16 January, 2007 19:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The unproven assumption by 9/11 debunkers is that the same type of traditional building demolition tactics would be used to destroy two buildings that were at one time the tallest buildings in the world.

What is the problem with applying standard controlled demolition theory and tactics to the Twin Towers? The collapse would have to begin at the base, when in fact, collapse began at or near the impact zone. But because the collapse began at or near the impact zone does not disprove the use of explosives to assist in the destruction of the buildings, ie controlled demolition.

As evidence from primary resources is accumulated and(http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/
Explosions%20everywhere.WMV)

points to the use of explosives used at the WTC complex accumulates, it is very clear that this is not a traditional controlled demolition.

Indeed, even the head structural engineer of the WTC complex said

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Seattle Times Saturday Feb 23, 1993.

Little did Skilling know his prophetic statement would ring the bells of truth 8 years later.

 
At 16 January, 2007 19:23, Blogger Alex said...

Pat, it's not pyroclastic flow. It's nowhere near hot enough, and it's not started by a volcano. It's just dust. This mis-appropriation of scientific terminology is one of the most annoying aspects of twoofer arguments.


Bg, you're flabbergasted? Well, that's an improvement over your normal "I know better than the experts" mindset. Just for the record, we're not having a "he said, she said" argument. We're having a "you're too stubborn to listen to the experts" argument.

 
At 16 January, 2007 19:25, Blogger Alex said...

Little did Skilling know his prophetic statement would ring the bells of truth 8 years later.

I'm sure the poor guy is turning in his grave. Thanks a lot, asshole.

 
At 16 January, 2007 21:12, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 January, 2007 21:12, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Alex,
I think BG was being a sarcastic piece of shit but this is just my opinion.

 
At 16 January, 2007 21:17, Blogger CHF said...

Oh I get it, Swing.

You're saying 9/11 was a NEW kind of demolition, one that was nothing like any demolition ever done, and one which demolition experts don't think was a demolition.

Gotcha.

By the way, Swing. A few days ago I posted a list of engineering departments for you to contact with your theories.

How did it go? Did they laugh?

 
At 16 January, 2007 23:23, Blogger Pat said...

BG, it would probably be helpful if there were experts on the other side.

 
At 17 January, 2007 03:58, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The unproven assumption by 9/11 debunkers is that the same type of traditional building demolition tactics would be used to destroy two buildings that were at one time the tallest buildings in the world.

So... the conspirators, during the most cunning and clever cover-up in world history, used a completely untested and unproven method for building demolition. It somehow involved having explosives at exactly the spot that the plane would hit and where the fires would be raging.

And somehow the plane hit the right spot, the explosives survived the flames, and the charges all went off by some remote means despite the fact that demolitionists almost exclusively use detcord, due to the dangers involved in remote signal detonation.

Riiight.

Why don't you just admit you are saying 'A wizard did it!' when you invent fantasies like this?

 
At 17 January, 2007 04:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF wrote: "Oh I get it, Swing.

You're saying 9/11 was a NEW kind of demolition, one that was nothing like any demolition ever done, and one which demolition experts don't think was a demolition."


It's just a milder form of the "beam weapon" nonsense. UFO and Moon Hoax nuts do the same thing Swing does, too; they make up brand new, secret technology to glue the shattered pieces of their fantasy world together.

 
At 17 January, 2007 05:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I just find the words of the Head Structural Engineer about his building more reliable than the NIST which apparently ignored his words and all of the evidence that point to Skilling being correct about his towers.

The NIST doesn't test for explosives even though the Head Structural Engineer told the world that is exactly what would bring the towers down, not jets and fire.

Tele you can speculate how it was all pulled off according to your theory and then categorically deny that it happended because you find it implausible but why not ask some of the professional organizations around the world how they would pull it off?

 
At 17 January, 2007 05:34, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Before July 20, 1969, can you think of another instance where human beings landed on another planet in the universe?

I can't think of one. Can you?

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:02, Blogger Gdem2408 said...

Swing, can YOU technically prove the use of explosives ?! I don't think so...

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:16, Blogger Stevew said...

Pure speculation on Skilling's part it is too bad that Yamasaki is not alive. The towers were unique and the hows, whys of the collapse can only be speculation. There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts.
The original design called for the towers to take a hit from a 707 that was lost in the fog, it seems that 30 years later that opinions differ. I have seen pre 911 specs that confirm this. Perhaps because the towers seemed to be very well built that one could speculate that they could take more but a 707 lost in the fog was what they were designed for. The whole point of the unique design was to build a building that was light weight and have unobstructed floor space.
They orginally were to be around 80-90 stories but late in the design changes were made to make them 110 stories, perhaps this had something to do with the collapse, nobody knows.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
He also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens-it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
On September 11th, each building took the impact of a 767 (which is nearly twenty per cent heavier than a 707) and stood long enough to allow most of the people below the crash sites-the ninety-fourth floor to the ninety-ninth floor in the north tower, and the seventy-eighth floor to the eighty-fourth floor in the south tower-to escape. Had the buildings toppled immediately, nearly all those survivors would have died, and there would have been huge losses as well in the buildings and streets around the towers. The fact that the terrorists chose to hit the buildings on opposite faces suggests to some that they intended to knock the buildings over-which would have increased the destruction and loss of life. "Ninety-nine per cent of all buildings would collapse immediately when hit by a 767," Jon Magnusson said.
But did the special structural characteristics of these buildings, qualities that made them so resistant to attack from without, also make them vulnerable to collapse from within, once the fires started? If one of the airplanes had hit an older skyscraper, like the Empire State Building, which has a frame structure instead of a tube structure, would the total disaster have been greater (the building falls over immediately) or lesser (the concrete in the building lasts longer in a fire, and the frame structure protects the building from complete collapse)? Of all the difficult questions that the FEMA investigators need to ask about the disaster, this is one of the hardest.
Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure was clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
The Port Authority envisioned a project with a total of 10 million square feet of office space. To achieve this, Yamasaki considered more than a hundred different building configurations before settling on the concept of twin towers and three lower-rise structures. Designed to be very tall to maximize the area of the plaza.
The towers were initially to rise to only 80-90 stories. Only later was it decided to construct them as the world's tallest buildings, following a suggestion said to have originated with the Port Authority's public relations staff.

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Again Tele, what professional experience are you using to describe a particular scenario as being...

untested

unproven

unsafe remote means

Do you think the perpetrators would attack the WTC complex with the all of the above being true?

How would explosives survive? I'm speculating here but perhaps incase them in say the same material as black boxes are incased in?

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

they make up brand new, secret technology to glue the shattered pieces of their fantasy world together.

Funny that you lie like that. Could you please re-post 'technology' that I made up or invented?

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:47, Blogger Pepik said...

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Seattle Times Saturday Feb 23, 1993."

That's really exciting news, because up to now I thought the buildings were indestructible. In fact a key argument for the debunkers is that buildings cannot be destroyed with explosives.

 
At 17 January, 2007 06:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing wrote: "Funny that you lie like that. Could you please re-post 'technology' that I made up or invented?"

That's my fault. That should have read "technology or methods".

 
At 17 January, 2007 07:03, Blogger Manny said...

I'm speculating here but perhaps incase them in say the same material as black boxes are incased in?

Gee, if only the designers had thought to build the whole buildings that way!

Swing, you are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet. You should institutionalize yourself for everyone's protection.

 
At 17 January, 2007 07:24, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

your chief expert on this matter is dead, and was dead 3 years before 9/11.

Could you please produce an expert who is ALIVE and was ALIVE during 9/11?

That's not too much to ask, is it?

To prove there were explosives used on 9/11 you can only quote a dead guy who never even saw 9/11.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, SWING!

 
At 17 January, 2007 07:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Swing, you are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

What does it say when the dumbest motherfucker on the planet has consistently, factually, and logically countered every arguement you've ever brought up or responded to?

My statement was a hypothetical example to counter the crash scene survival of explosives to explain Tele's response. Amazing that humans can survive the crash impact zone but explosives can't. Riiight.

Also what does explain the complete symmetrical initiation of the collapse zone from asymmetrical damage over more than one floor?

Your's Truly,
The Dumbest Motherfucker in the World

 
At 17 January, 2007 07:30, Blogger CHF said...

How would explosives survive? I'm speculating here but perhaps incase them in say the same material as black boxes are incased in?

HAHAHAHHAA!!!

Take that to a demolition expert. Seriously.

And be sure to video tape the discussion and post it on youtube.

 
At 17 January, 2007 08:34, Blogger MarkyX said...


Also what does explain the complete symmetrical initiation of the collapse zone from asymmetrical damage over more than one floor?


It wasn't symmetrical. Stop pretending it is.

 
At 17 January, 2007 09:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My issue is that, if you'd told me 5 years ago, that we were going to still be having "he said, she said" debates about controlled demolition

There is no debate as to what happened on 911 with the people who know the facts of the event and have the expertise (engineers and demolition experts).

Same as the evolution debate, Scientist agree, it happens, it's real. Only debate is do we let the ID people dumb down our children by teaching intelligent design in our schools.

No debate on 9/11 as well, but do we let the truthers dumb down the American people with a political driven fantasy, and waist more time and tax money investigating their delusions?

 
At 17 January, 2007 10:50, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

any word on that ALIVE engineer you should be looking for?

Keep me posted.

 
At 17 January, 2007 11:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

It wasn't symmetrical. Stop pretending it is.

So your saying the building's collapse was not localized at one point at the same time?

Can you point me to some primary resources that proves the collapse started on many different floors at the same time and then those floors all caught up to each other?

Or are you trying to apply the term 'symmetrical' to the total collapse to twist my words?



911_truthiness So, like the other deniers, you deny that numerous people, including the mainstream media, eyewitnesses, victims, firefighters, first responders, etc all heard massive explosions during the attacks and some report a massive explosion just prior to impact? Is the world in general and the world of experts aware of such facts?

Does this mean you also deny what the Head Structural Engineer said about his own building in 1993?

It seems to me to issue an edict as being the truth, that all of the facts would have to be examined before it could truly be called the truth.

And apparently if there isn't a debate this blog wouldn't exist, numerous media outlets would not be covering the 9/11 Truth Movement, 9/11 Commission members wouldn't be issuing statements about the problems with their report, etc.

 
At 17 January, 2007 11:51, Blogger Stevew said...

Explosions can be heard from the towers, therefore they were bombs in the buildings.
Many 9/11 Deniers like to use a large list of firefighter quotes explaining explosions they encountered in the building. Like most evidence from the 9/11 Deniers, it's taken out of context.
Almost anything can cause an explosion. A vacuum of air, fire hitting the fuel, and electrical panels are just some sources that could cause explosions. Even large debris falling onto a floor can produce a loud sharp bang that could be mistaken for an explosion. They are too many factors that go against the theory that the sources of these explosions came from bombs and the 9/11 Deniers refuse to investigate them further.
Here is a video of an electrical transformer causing an explosion. These transformers are commonly found in office buildings, the list goes on and on of things in the buildings that could have caused explosions. http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

 
At 17 January, 2007 12:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...

What is the problem with applying standard controlled demolition theory and tactics to the Twin Towers? The collapse would have to begin at the base, when in fact, collapse began at or near the impact zone. But because the collapse began at or near the impact zone does not disprove the use of explosives to assist in the destruction of the buildings, ie controlled demolition.

The problem with you hypothesis, there is no evidence what-so-ever of a controlled demolition. If you want to prove a controlled demo took place, you would have to show subsantial evidence one took place. Using people's testimonies to prove there was a controlled demo is not evidence. Yes, there were explosions in the Towers that day. However, the source of those explosions could have come from anywhere. In actuality, most, if not all of those explosions can be explained without conspiracy or Controlled Demo.

You said so yourself, an airplane hits the building, starts a massive fire, then collapses at the point of impact. Using Occam's Razor, which most scientist and philosopher use, the collapse would have been the result of combination of the airplane impact and the fire. This is what Occam's Razor is. Using the definition from dictionary.com, "A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony." In this situation, you would need to show there was Controlled Demolition at the WTC. However, you do not do that. Instead, you use quotations from somebody who died before the event even happened. This does not prove your hypothesis. In fact, it does nothing to help you either. Hell, I can't even take your claim seriously.

 
At 17 January, 2007 13:03, Blogger MarkyX said...

steven, a lot of people here are very well-aware of my work on Frequently Stupid Theories. No need to quote em :)

 
At 17 January, 2007 13:41, Blogger CHF said...

Apparently Swing's being a bitch and is giving me the silent treatment.

Can someone please ask princess Swing whether he made any effort to contact engineers?

Thanks.

 
At 17 January, 2007 13:43, Blogger CHF said...

RolandofGilead,

The problem with you hypothesis, there is no evidence what-so-ever of a controlled demolition. If you want to prove a controlled demo took place, you would have to show subsantial evidence one took place.

Welcome to twoofer logic. The burden of proof is, for some reason, on YOU to prove that it DIDN'T happen.

Bizarre, isn't it?

 
At 17 January, 2007 14:12, Blogger Manny said...

Swing whether he made any effort to contact engineers?

No need to ask. No, he did not.

 
At 17 January, 2007 14:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf, indeed, it is very bizare.

 
At 17 January, 2007 15:48, Blogger Alex said...

What does it say when the dumbest motherfucker on the planet has consistently, factually, and logically countered every arguement you've ever brought up or responded to?

What does it say when nobody else considers your arguments either factual nor logical?

Yes swing, you're a fucking genius. It's just too bad that using your own logic we've shown you to be a child molester too.

 
At 17 January, 2007 16:11, Blogger Richard said...

Let me see if I get SD's logic right. He thinks that the twin towers were brought down with explosives. To prove it he cites someone who is dead and did not witness the events of 9/11. Naturally this person can't defend themselves. When pointed out that experts, who are very much alive, think that the idea of a CD is ludicrous Swing then says that its not a typical CD. Basically he says that experts don't know what they are talking about and that he does, even though he has no training in explosives. In other words he is totally dismissing experts. He then pulls out of his ass stuff like encasing explosives in objects similar to black boxes in order to protect them.

Swing your a freaking moron.

 
At 17 January, 2007 16:22, Blogger Stevew said...

Both Protec and CDI found nothing that would indicate CD
Charges can't be in boxes. Do the whaks know how these charges must be placed and why? There would have had to have been hundreds and must be the width of the girders to be cut or around 3' long and wrapped tightly around the girder of they will not slice it properly. They would have had to be placed in the inner walls on bare girders while people worked, that is a fact.
All then would have to be wired together and the planes would have had to hit very close to where they were planted. Each pilot would hace to know which building and what floors. Why did they not hit lower, with more weight on top they might have toppled over.

 
At 17 January, 2007 18:27, Blogger Richard said...

Exactly! The moment a "shaped" charge loses its shape it's rendered useless. Even if there was some super strong material to protect it you would still have bare wires running all over the place. Controlled demolitions are an EXACT science, all variables must be accounted for. Introduce a plane slamming into the buildings at 500+ MPH your going to mess something up. I personally wouldn't wire a building then fly a plane into it. It could easily mess up your plan by disturbing something. Imagine if you go to detonate and only a handful of explosive devices go off. Then it would be totally obvious that there was some devious conspiracy going on. I wouldn't risk it. If you think about it, just hitting the towers with planes is more than enough of a mandate to do what you want to do. Why risk exposure by doing something like a CD?

 
At 17 January, 2007 19:46, Blogger CHF said...

He then pulls out of his ass stuff like encasing explosives in objects similar to black boxes in order to protect them.

That's how twoofers operate.

When their theories run into trouble they just make up some bullshit explanation on the spot that sounds semi-plausible (to them anyway) all without doing the slightest bit of research or thinking.

 
At 17 January, 2007 19:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing wrote: "How would explosives survive? I'm speculating here but perhaps incase them in say the same material as black boxes are incased in?"

Really now... You speculate that they could have been encased in what many of your ilk believe to be a nearly indestructable case. Classic.

"So your saying the building's collapse was not localized at one point at the same time?

Can you point me to some primary resources that proves the collapse started on many different floors at the same time and then those floors all caught up to each other?"


You don't seem to understand what the definition of symmetry is...

 
At 17 January, 2007 21:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if I am correct, wire is NOT used to trigger explosives like the type used in implosions. Detonation Coed is. And this stuff is hard to hide and far to easily damaged by fire.

Detonation cord

 
At 17 January, 2007 21:43, Blogger Richard said...

Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of wires for detonators but come to think of it I've only seen det cord used for CD's.

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:07, Blogger Stevew said...

911
Good catch :) Wireing is the only term I could think of but it does discribe the method pretty well

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 18 January, 2007 06:13, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The problem with you hypothesis, there is no evidence what-so-ever of a controlled demolition. If you want to prove a controlled demo took place, you would have to show subsantial evidence one took place. Using people's testimonies to prove there was a controlled demo is not evidence. Yes, there were explosions in the Towers that day. However, the source of those explosions could have come from anywhere. In actuality, most, if not all of those explosions can be explained without conspiracy or Controlled Demo.

Interesting that you state there is no evidence for controlled demolition and I assume you are lumping the use of explosives to help bring the buildings down with CD.

1.The explosions could come from anywhere. No, some came from the basement, one at least prior to impact. Numerous employees at the WTC complex approached the 9/11 Commission to testify about their experience, but the commission didn't want to hear it. See Willy R. for that issue. To continue with that line of denial, you have to deny mainstream media sources, firefighters, first responders, FBI, employees of the WTC towers, the video record of the day from MSM to citizens own video record, first impressions of the experts, continue opinion of one of the world's foremost experts, as he still believes a combustable item could have tiggered the collapse.
You can DENY all of the is evidence pointing to the use of explosives, but the historical record reamins the same.

So now that we have enough evidence to test for explosive materials, lets carry out the test...

2. Testing-You could prove or disprove the use of explosives at the WTC complex through testing.

Why test for explosives? Again, all the evidence in number 1, as well as the statement of the Head Structural Engineer of the WTC statements in '93, and past attacks, that and it is still a crime scene.

Did the NIST consider all of the above evidence? I have no idea but apparently not.

Did they test for explosive residue? Absolutelty not!

Yet another agency that ignores the evidence of the use of explosives at the wtc complex. That is now the 9/11 Commission and the NIST.

Therefore, the hypothesis remains very valid.

3. Your own statements-You admit there were explosions that day. Great. Even stating they could come from anywhere, and anywhere includes explosive devices placed in the building. Therefore, the hypothesis remains valid as you so indirectly admit. You want to reason that because they could come from anywhere, that they should have tested for such, or at the least considered the hypothesis. I'm sorry but that line of logic is fallacious.

The head designer stated exactly what would bring his building down.
Explosives, not fire and jets.

Dead or alive, what defense is there? He stated exactly what would bring his building down-"

However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."From the Seattle Times
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993
Eric Nalder

STEVEW Try attacking all of the evidence instead of one faucet to prove your point. Now let me use your words against you:

the list goes on and on of things in the buildings that could have caused explosions.
Yep, including explosive devices within the buildings, which is why they should have considered that in the investigation.

You want to use opinions differ. It isn't an opinion. In fact it had be fact to avoid a lawsuit...

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP,

THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133

Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

And to clear up the memory of your source from the firm Skilling worked for A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky, Times Books page 131

No need for a difference in opinion there!

And to sum it up, the hypothesis still remains very valid to this day. The facts support it, the Head Designer of the building support, the historical record supports it.

To not consider explosives let alone test for the use of the destruction of the Twin Towers is to deny the rightful investigation into the murder of 300 0 lives. They demand the truth. Sadly that is what happened, and sadly folks like yourselfs continue to support it.

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:31, Blogger CHF said...

1.The explosions could come from anywhere. No, some came from the basement, one at least prior to impact.

Yet the towers collapsed from the impact zone.

And to sum it up, the hypothesis still remains very valid to this day. The facts support it, the Head Designer of the building support, the historical record supports it.

Yet, sadly, no demoltiion experts or structural engineers (who are alive anyway) support it.

You could go about changing this by showing your proof to some engineers. But we all know how you feel about doing that....for some strange reason you shy away from taking such logical steps.

Either

A) you know your proof is crap and thus have no real confidence in it

or

B) you're doing your part in covering up 9/11.

Which is it, Swing?

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:36, Blogger Stevew said...

Pure speculation. The towers were unique and the hows, whys of the collapse can only be speculation.
The towers were designed to take a hit from a slow flying 707 lost in the fog. but were hit with many times the force they were designed to absorb. Nobody in the world knows what happened at the moment of the crash. There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Anyone could take any disaster and ask a myriad of questions that have no relivence.

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
http://tinyurl.com/gb746

As I said SD you are nothing but a blow hard. You have a way with words I will give you that but all you do is cherry pick that which supports your view and then embelish it with 500 words of Bs to try and make people think you actually know what you are talking about. I have yet to see you back up your lunacy with cold hard facts from people who are actually qualified, you just throw this and that most of which is taken out of context because you think it supports your view.
What I find interesting is, if this conspiricy is as vast as the freaks say and would of had to involve so many people who would be willing to kill all those people. It could have been 25000 people. How long would it take to find enough people willing to do this? How many agencys would be involved? can we really believe that all these people could keep a secret like this? Is all of DC involved? All of the senators and congressman?
It would have taken years to plan something this large not the 6-8 months W was in office. Just go gather and screen enough people who were willing to do it would take a very long time let alone all the planing it would take.
You have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives. You have been watching too many movies.
What happened to that flight the passengers on board and the flight crew? Are they on an island watching free Elvis concerts with John Kennedy or are they in the place of lost socks?

People saw a plane fly over their head in Washington. Are they all in on it? The ex solicitor general Ted Olsen talked to his wife until it crashed. Where is she now?

How on earth did anyone place the charges in just the right spots in the trade center with out being caught and no holes in the walls to be seen?
Were the core girders exposee or covered up?
Why were these socalled explosives placed on different levels?

How did the planes hit the exact spot where they were suposidly planted?

Why has no CD company said that they were demolished by CD?

It goes on and on and all, you do is give the same BS that is skewed to fit your view, are you even qualified to give a technical view?

 
At 18 January, 2007 09:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

911_truthiness So, like the other deniers, you deny that numerous people, including the mainstream media, eyewitnesses, victims, firefighters, first responders, etc all heard massive explosions

And are you so dense as to think loud explosive noises would NOT emanate from a building with major fires buning and in danger of collapse. The expression "It sounded like a bomb going off" is common when people do not have the words to explain what they heard, does not mean there actually were bombs. I heard it the other night on the new when a guys car hit a house "It sounded like a bomb going off" said the house owner, so should we check his house for explosives? Don't be stupid.

The designers of the WTC do not but the conspiracy theorist view and they know the most about those buildings.

The fact blogs exist to point out the lies and disinformation of the truthers do not give credence to the wackjobs but are more a study of the sad nature of some people to buy bullshit wrapped as a truth movement.

I personally pulled a friend out of the bullshit. He like me is liberal and there is nothing we would like to see more then old GWB out of the White House, but he was far too gullible and let his hate for Bush cloud his judgement, so I set him straight with some facts and well formed logic and now he ignores the truthers. I think he feel silly for having been suckered by the truthers. My own personal victory for truth. And from that sprang my own 9/11 site
911 Truthiness.org

 
At 18 January, 2007 10:58, Blogger CHF said...

So, like the other deniers, you deny that numerous people, including the mainstream media, eyewitnesses, victims, firefighters, first responders, etc all heard massive explosions

Oh boy - Swing's trying to sell this stupid fucking lie again.

NO ONE DENIES THAT PEOPLE HEARD EXPLOSIONS!

We simply point out the obvious: that "explosion" does NOT equal "explosives."

When I was a kid I watched a housing complex burn down. I heard explosions. So does that mean the CIA planted bombs?

 
At 18 January, 2007 12:33, Blogger Stevew said...

Ever hear the sound that a planes wings make when they do stress tests? Girders snapping, bolts breaking, tanks exploding, the list goes on and on. If there was CD there would have to have been far more than were heard

 
At 18 January, 2007 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, some came from the basement, one at least prior to impact.

Source?

Numerous employees at the WTC complex approached the 9/11 Commission to testify about their experience, but the commission didn't want to hear it. See Willy R. for that issue. To continue with that line of denial, you have to deny mainstream media sources, firefighters, first responders, FBI, employees of the WTC towers, the video record of the day from MSM to citizens own video record, first impressions of the experts, continue opinion of one of the world's foremost experts, as he still believes a combustable item could have tiggered the collapse.

First and formost, with all the confusion going on that day, is it not true that many people could have been mistaken with what was actually going on? They say a Tornado sounds like a freight train. However, not every freight train sound you hear is a freight train. Funny you should mention this. You said there were bombs in the basement, that one went off before the plane hit the building. How is it possible for an eyewitness in the basement to know if the bomb went off before the plane hit or not. The impact was over 1000 ft above the lobby. It takes time for the shockwave to travel down a structure. Somebody in the basement or lobby at the time of impact would not have seen the impact itself. So, how is that person to know whether the explosion happened before or after the impact?

You can DENY all of the is evidence pointing to the use of explosives, but the historical record reamins the same.

Explosions do not an explosive make. When you have fire, gas, energy, and pressure, you will get an explosion. You do not always have to have an explosive device. If you were to buy an aeresol can, go home and build a fire, throw the can in it, and sit back, an explosion will happen. There was no C-4 or Thermite or Thermate or however the hell you pronounce it. Besides, you are the one who is insisting it was a CD. Well, where's your hard evidence? The burden of proof is on you buddy.

Why test for explosives? Again, all the evidence in number 1, as well as the statement of the Head Structural Engineer of the WTC statements in '93, and past attacks, that and it is still a crime scene.

That is what we in the scientific and engineering field call anecdotal evidence. However, it is not enough to prove your hypothesis because it is not substantiated. I'm fairly sure that if that man was still alive, he would not agree with you. On another note, was there residue found that came from squibs or other known reactive substances in large quantities? Trace amounts of sulfur do not count because drywall has sulfur in it.

3. Your own statements-You admit there were explosions that day. Great. Even stating they could come from anywhere, and anywhere includes explosive devices placed in the building. Therefore, the hypothesis remains valid as you so indirectly admit. You want to reason that because they could come from anywhere, that they should have tested for such, or at the least considered the hypothesis. I'm sorry but that line of logic is fallacious.

No, it's called using Parsimony. There is no evidence of a Controlled Demo, therefore, why should it be part of the hypothesis? If there was a CD, there would be evidence of one. However, an explosion alone is not evidence. When put into the context of what actually happened that day, explosions were inevitable. It is easier to believe that these explosions came from loud noise mistaken for explosions, transformer explosions, gas explosions, etc. The reason I do not consider CD is because there are only two ways that I can see how a CD is possible.
-The CDs were in the put in the building over a period of year in a slow but concealed way. Every floor and every beam would have had to be rigged. The airplane pilot would not have been accurate enough to hit the exact spot. However, there are problems with this. One, the time it would have taken to rig both towers. Lets say they do one floor a day. Both towers had a total of 220 floors. that would have taken 220 days to complete. Bush would not have been in office when they started. Besides, they had to do it quietly to keep people from noticing. So, two days to do each floor, this would have taken 440 days. Then, you had to run a line to the squibs, this is not something you can hide. There would have been no radio detonators because those are too inefficiant. Besides, there is a risk of setting off charges in the impact is too risky. It's plausible, however, not likely.
-Or, the explosives were planted after the impact. This is less likely because of the time frame these people would have to work in. On top of that, the would have had to fight the foot traffic going up the tower, clean the debris, than planted the explosives and get back out. Both scenarios are highly unlikely either way you put them. That is why I do not include them in my argument. The possibility of them being pulled off without anybody knowing is astronomical. The total lack of evidence to support both scenarios is non-existant. It's easier to except the towers came down because a bunch of pissed off Arabs flew into them with airplanes starting a series of events that brought down both towers.

Dead or alive, what defense is there? He stated exactly what would bring his building down-"


Because he is not here to analyse the data.

However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."From the Seattle Times
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993
Eric Nalder


Hey, I bet if you gave me enough money and time, I could have figured out a way to bring down the towers myself. However, that does not prove that the towers came down because of a controlled demolition. Proof of concept does not prove it happened. The confederates during the Civil War had the technology to make liquid fuel rockets. That does not mean they did. The Inka had the ability to build ocean going vessels to sail the Atlantic ocean to Europe. That does not mean they actually did it. The only thing you are doing here is rhetoric. It has nothing to do with how the towers actually came down. This may impress a five year old. I doubt it would a structual engineer.

Let me give you a scenario, let's say that there was an independent investigation into whether or not controlled demos were used to bring down the towers. Let's say that this investigation turned up nothing to support the claim and then sided with the official story, would you accept that there is no conspiracy? Or will you continue to claim this new independent investigation was bought off by Bush and his cronies? For some reason, I believe the latter.

 
At 18 January, 2007 13:35, Blogger Stevew said...

RolandofGilead
Very very well put

 
At 18 January, 2007 13:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you. :)

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:12, Blogger CHF said...

Let's say that this investigation turned up nothing to support the claim and then sided with the official story, would you accept that there is no conspiracy? Or will you continue to claim this new independent investigation was bought off by Bush and his cronies? For some reason, I believe the latter.

Bingo.

That's why these retards NEVER give examples of WHO should conduct a "new investigation."

I must have asked 20+ twoofers and am yet to hear a single name.

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:48, Blogger Stevew said...

Good point Chf as have I. Who would they get that is more qualified than the experts who already did it?
Thats a list I would like to see

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish now I actually proofread it. :D

 
At 19 January, 2007 10:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rolando
1. Lets be clear, I'm not arguing what the device was that brought it down. I can't argue that, I don't have the necessary materials to do so. I'm arguing the use of explosive devices, some say thermate, c-4, whatever it maybe, that is of course pure speculation.

Below are numerous video links to the historical record of explosions going off. Does that meant there was a bomb? Of course not. Is it reason not to consider, CD? Of course not.

Based upon the primary sources, it certainly isn't spray cans in a fire or transformers but some sort of explosive device.

The point being besides fire and damage, something else helped bring those towers down. I argue that it was some sort of explosive devices based upon the following:


Basement explosions source:
http://rinf.com/news/july-05/14a.html
Summary: highlights the statement of a second janitor who was in the basement when an explosive device went off.

Another source, http://www.chiefengineer.org/
article.cfm?seqnum1=1029


Another source:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/
articles/article.html?id=7762

Another source:
PHILLIP MORELLI
http://www.gallerize.com/
153%20WINDY%20TOWERS%20OF%209-
11%20Four-Dateien/image001.jpg

Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1) describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: (NOTE: Interview has been changed) ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_
survivors.html

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" (the elevator fire theory does not explain these issues

The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said.

Prior to impact-we aren't dealing with sound, we are dealing with structure and human damage that was not caused by the impact or fire from the fuel.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body.

"He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

William led Felipe David outside to safety. William continued to hear people screaming and returned to the building in spite of police orders. There were people encased in elevators. There were people who needed help.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com
/articles/article.html?id=7762


Some might argue this is fire from the shafts. If so, why did the fire department not split operations to fight a fire in the basement to prevent being trapped. Or why no fire damage in the Naudet brothers film in the lobby? But if you take into consideration all of the evidence listed above along with the '93 attack, explosive devices make the most sense.

Primary source material for evidence of explosions continues. http://www.medievalhistory.net/

Police report of explosive device:
http://www.medievalhistory.net/
police.wmv

AND PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SOUND?
http://www.medievalhistory.net/
detonation.wmv

"...the city's exploding..."

Comment after the blast. Explain to me what they could have possibly heard because it wasn't spray cans.

In regards to your ancedotal comment: ancedotal-
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.

There were no scientific evaluations of all the evidence pointing to the use of explosives. The NIST turned their heads so to speak.

However, that does not prove that the towers came down because of a controlled demolition.

Correct. It proves exactly what the head Structural Engineer said would bring his towers down: explosive devices, not fire and damage from a plane.

He would certainly know considering this was right after the attacks of 1993, when an explosive device was used to try to bring the towers down, but failed.

His own firm reported the towers were secure against a 707 at 600 mphs. Based upon that, what facts would Skilling need? A copy of the video of the collapse is the only thing we could show him along with all of the primary source material.

I would show him first the all of the explosive material considering it took place before the collapse and then the collapse video. He would probably say, well I told you so in 1993!


The evidence you claim is parsimony. I assume you mean the adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.

Lets apply Razor then. Explosives devices were tried before with limited success, ie structural damage, but no collapse.

Combine explosive devices causing structural damage along with the jet's impact causing structural damage and fire damage and you get a global collapse, in accordance with the thoughts of the head Structural Engineer, first thoughts of experts, and first opinions of eyewitnesses be it at ground level or on national television.

Versus jet damage and fire damage alone causing errr..well we don't have an offical account of the collapse mechanism so I guess we can't compare the two.
But for the sake of arguement...

It was fire damage that caused the collapse, it was the plane knocking the fire proofing off of the structure causing the steel to not collapse but bend. The office fire then raged hot enough to cause the structure to weaken over an hour or so later, while allowing survivors at the crash scene to live and even to escape and then collapse at the same time in the same place in a uniform manner even though the damage was not uniform.
And at the end of the day, all of the explosions heard were from everything but explosive devices.

Now which one does Razor fit best?



I doubt it would a structual engineer.
Would it if the SE knew all of the facts, listened to all of the eyewitnesses, and watched the numerous videos documenting explosives going off?
Could there be any conflict of interests?

Let's say that this investigation turned up nothing to support the claim and then sided with the official story, would you accept that there is no conspiracy.

That is of course a trap statment, considering there are two conspriacy theories: the governments and the rest.

Again for sake of arguement, sure, I would support that.
With the following conditions:

1. Would they investigate the explosions heard at the various stages of the attack? (especially considering what happened in '93)

2. Would they test materials (or what is left) for explosive residue?

3. Would they input data that could be used to test the hypothesis in their computer models instead of 'tweaking' the data to fit their own prescribed theory?

4. Would their entire investigation be open to view by the public?

5. Would the investigation be properly funded without a timeframe and political motivation?

Finally, Rolando, I think I have given sufficient reason to consider an explosive devices hypothesis in regards to the destruction of the Twin Towers. I've only listed a small amount of evidence that points in that direction. I would hope that you would examine all of the primary source material from published statements to the video/audio documentary compiled while the attacks were underway.

To deny the hypothesis, is to deny the historical record.

P.S. Thank you kindly for remaining civil in your discussion. That is certainly a change of pace on this blog.

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:33, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

you plan on producing a structural engineering report to back you up at some point?

 
At 19 January, 2007 15:34, Blogger Alex said...

That's a laugh. The idiot still thinks that explosions in the basement somehow caused the building to collapse from the middle. How's he supposed to get any structural engineers on board with that theory?

 
At 19 January, 2007 20:50, Blogger CHF said...

The idiot still thinks that explosions in the basement somehow caused the building to collapse from the middle.

Blow up basement supports = building falling into foot print (ie. bottom-up collapse).

When someone fails to understand something that straighforward there really is no hope for them.

 
At 19 January, 2007 23:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Lets be clear, I'm not arguing what the device was that brought it down. I can't argue that, I don't have the necessary materials to do so. I'm arguing the use of explosive devices, some say thermate, c-4, whatever it maybe, that is of course pure speculation.

I don't deal in pure speculation. If you have physical evidence, you need to present it. Let us try to prove or disprove the existence of God. There is no evidence to prove it one way or the other. So, what is the point of arguing it if it is pure speculation. Science explains the rational. In order for it to be rational, it has to be observed and measured to produce purely quantitative data. Religion is irrational. It explains things that cannot be measured or observed. This is why you will never win a religion debate with science and vice versa.

One top of that, if you are going to claim use of explosives in, you have to show what type of explosives there are. Each explosive has its own signature and make up. I want to know if it was thermite, C-4, or a non-fission hydrogen bomb (which does not exist). Details are key in proving a hypothesis. You are claiming there were bombs in the towers. Yet you do not provide the details of the types of bombs. You do not explain how they work. You do not explain how they were put there. Lastly, you do not explain how a conspiracy this big could have been pulled off without a large resource base.

Based upon the primary sources, it certainly isn't spray cans in a fire or transformers but some sort of explosive device.

Have you ever heard a transformer explode? I have. The last one was over a mile off. Hell, on good days, I can hear the freight train seven miles off.

I was using the spray can simile as an example of how you do not need an explosive device to have an explosion. There are other things that could have been mistaken for explosions. Steel popping, building collapsing, etc. You are not thinking of the bigger picture or of the context of what happened that day. You have a fire. You are going to have explosions. This is universal with all major fires. I saw a Tractor Trailer explode simply because it turned over. There was enough friction between it and the highway to ignite the fuel in the fueltank. The explosion could have been heard two miles away. There was no bomb. Yet an explosion took place. You have to prove there is a case for CD. This you simple have not done.

The point being besides fire and damage, something else helped bring those towers down. I argue that it was some sort of explosive devices based upon the following:

Actually, James here has posted pictures of the South Tower. In all those pictures, you can clearly see the southeast corner of the outer perimeter wall buckling. Even in the initial collapse of the South Tower, the top of the building tipped. Hell, the first time I watched the video on Sept. 11, 2001, I noticed the top of the building tipping as the Tower started to collapse. I even commented on it to my friends. This buckling in my honest opinion is what cased the South Tower to collapse. You do not have to have an explosive of this.

Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1) describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: (NOTE: Interview has been changed) ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_
survivors.html


If he was in the basement, how would he have known if the explosions coincided with the impact of the airplane? He would not have been able to the plane impact from the basement.

Also, he said when he came out and saw the South Tower hit, he never specifies whether the explosions happened before or after the impact. He just says it conincides with the impact. This is a matter of interpretation.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

So the explosion came after the shake?

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" (the elevator fire theory does not explain these issues

Interesting. However,

"You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming."

If he could not see anything, then how is it possible for him to know what was missing? This is a contradiction. All this proves is 9/11 was a confusing event. I do not deny what this man saw. However, he was most likely confused. If this is true, then his testimony is unreliable at best. Besides, does anybody else back up his story?

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said.

If you could not see "anything", then how come there are no walls and why is there rubble on the floor? Another contradictory statement.

Prior to impact-we aren't dealing with sound, we are dealing with structure and human damage that was not caused by the impact or fire from the fuel.

Once again, they were in the basement. There is no way for them to know if these explosions happened before or after the impact. They did not witness the impact.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body.

This does not sound like an explosion, but a backdraft. A backdraft is "a sweep of air backwards; also, a condition in a fire where oxygen is depleted and the fire dies down until a door is opened and the fire flares violently from the intake of oxygen." (www.dictionary.com). Giving the context of the freight elevation, which probably ran the entire height of the building, the shaft would have made a perfect conduit for the burning airplane fuel. You cannot BS me on this either. I have seen numerous videos of the South Tower getting hit. In every one of them, There is a large cloud of burning fuel falling to the ground. This stuff acts just like napalm and works on the same principle. Besides, why do you not look for evidence of other people burned by jetfuel at ground level? They exist.

Comment after the blast. Explain to me what they could have possibly heard because it wasn't spray cans.

Never said it was.

There were no scientific evaluations of all the evidence pointing to the use of explosives. The NIST turned their heads so to speak.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. Why should we test if there is no evidence?

Correct. It proves exactly what the head Structural Engineer said would bring his towers down: explosive devices, not fire and damage from a plane.

Skilling died before 9/11. I'm sure he would have a different opinion had he lived long enough to witness it.

He would certainly know considering this was right after the attacks of 1993, when an explosive device was used to try to bring the towers down, but failed.

His own firm reported the towers were secure against a 707 at 600 mphs. Based upon that, what facts would Skilling need? A copy of the video of the collapse is the only thing we could show him along with all of the primary source material.

I would show him first the all of the explosive material considering it took place before the collapse and then the collapse video. He would probably say, well I told you so in 1993!


Different scenerio altogether. What happened in 93 did not endanger the over all structural integrety of the building. Why is this? Well, you could say it did not have the same force of a 767 flying at 500 mph loaded down with fuel. It did not take out the central support columns (which I've never even seen you mention BTW) nor did it severly damage the outer perimeter walls. You are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the two might be fruit. But they do not taste the same.

Now which one does Razor fit best?

Mine is still better. You are introducing a new variable into the scenerio. This variable has to have explosive devices, which would have been next to impossible to place given the context. Thus, Occam's Razor would side with me. I've already explained Occam's Razor, "The simplest answer is the best". You just repeated what I said in your own words. It still does not make your argument convincing.

Would it if the SE knew all of the facts, listened to all of the eyewitnesses, and watched the numerous videos documenting explosives going off?
Could there be any conflict of interests?


How about I actually ask a Structual Engineer come Monday. I do go to UNC Charlotte, which is one of the biggest Engineering schools in the state. Hell, that was the reason I came here to begin with.

That is of course a trap statment, considering there are two conspriacy theories: the governments and the rest.

Yes, it was a trap.

Again for sake of arguement, sure, I would support that.
With the following conditions:

1. Would they investigate the explosions heard at the various stages of the attack? (especially considering what happened in '93)

2. Would they test materials (or what is left) for explosive residue?

3. Would they input data that could be used to test the hypothesis in their computer models instead of 'tweaking' the data to fit their own prescribed theory?

4. Would their entire investigation be open to view by the public?

5. Would the investigation be properly funded without a timeframe and political motivation?


But, have not investigatons taken place with these parameters? I'm sure that even with those parameters answered, the OS story will still be sided with. However, not that I'm trying to make this any more personal, I don't think you would change your opinion.

To deny the hypothesis, is to deny the historical record.

Historical Record in what? Building collapse? Global politics? d20 roleplaying systems? You need to clarify statements like this. I do not like vague language.

P.S. Thank you kindly for remaining civil in your discussion. That is certainly a change of pace on this blog.

I stay civil because that is how a proper scientific debate should be. However, I can understand these peoples fustrations with the 9/11 cult movement. With this knowledge however, I cannot loss control over my emotions. If I do, I forfeit.

Finally, Rolando, I think I have given sufficient reason to consider an explosive devices hypothesis in regards to the destruction of the Twin Towers. I've only listed a small amount of evidence that points in that direction. I would hope that you would examine all of the primary source material from published statements to the video/audio documentary compiled while the attacks were underway.

I have examined it. It tells me nothing of a CD. All it tells, 9/11 was a horrible day in our history filled with tragedy and chaos. Hell, when I first heard about it, I thought we were being attacked by another country. Chaos effects people in different ways. Confusion is always the outcome of such events.

Lastly, my name is RolandofGilead as in Roland of Gilead, not Rolando. He was the main character in Stephen King's The Dark Tower. This story was based off of Robert Browning's poem "Childe Roland Til The Dark Tower Came", and Sergio Leone's "Man With No Name" Trilogy staring Clint Eastwood.

 
At 20 January, 2007 05:40, Blogger Stevew said...

http://tinyurl.com/gb746

The two towers were the first structures outside of the
military and nuclear industries designed to resist the
impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed
that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land
at JFK or at Newark not 600 mph.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft,
and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.
Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems

 
At 20 January, 2007 06:09, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay has done a great job on the transcripts so people can see what was really said

http://jay-911.blogspot.com/ transcripts

 
At 20 January, 2007 06:09, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 January, 2007 08:30, Blogger Alex said...

Roland:

I stay civil because that is how a proper scientific debate should be.

You'll learn soon enough that any discussion with swinger is about as scientific as licking a bald man's head in order to solve algebraic equations. The guy has no grasp of basic logic. He will not admit to being wrong, EVER. He will often make totally nonsensical statements, and express utter amazement when people fail to understand him. He has no grasp of how a debate is supposed to be structured. And, finally, when you get him cornered good he'll simply call you a liar and run away.

Don't waste your time.

However, I can understand these peoples fustrations with the 9/11 cult movement.

As annoying as the movement is, it's mostly individuals like him that I/we are frustrated with. In the many months that we've wasted talking to this..."person", I can't remember him admitting to even the possibility of him being wrong, even once. That takes a special sort of lunatic. Not only is he paranoid and ignorant, he's stubborn and conceited too. There's no way to talk any sense into people like him.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home