Easier question, forget thermite...

Maybe I complicated things too much for the PCT crowd by including thermite in my post yesterday.

The way I see it, the towers came down in one of 2 ways.

1. Planes hit the towers and the resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse

- or -

2. Someone brought down the towers after planes hit them, using controlled demolition to do the job.

So, what say ye? 1 or 2?

Sid

the kind that were used can be argued--dynamite, thermite, perhaps both.

But it was explosives/controlled demolition.

:hi:

Because, to produce the supposed evidence of demolition, that much would be required.

So, another question:

100 tons, YES or NO?

weakened the steel enough to initiate the pancake collapse why would explosives need to be placed throughout the building to produce the same result?

If “pancaking” initiated by weakened steel in the general area of the impact is a plausible hypothesis then theoretically, a demolition hypothesis where explosives are placed only in the area of impact would be plausible as well.

Why would a 100 tons of explosives be required?

does the force of gravity weaken w/o fire or something?

"Pulverization"--which requires truly massive release of energy. "Free Fall"--which would require cutting of all support beams on 80-odd floors.

You are talking 100s of tons of explosives.

-Conceivably- there could be small numbers of charges to help start the collapse, but that doesn't produce the claimed evidence. The building collapses pretty much as it would from impact damage and fire. Besides, you have to explain how the Secret Shadow Gov't knew which floors the planes would hit so that they could plant the explosive in the right place.

Needles to say, neither of these scenarios makes a damn bit of sense. I'm just trying to clarify what CD crowd is actually claiming. With the working hypothesis: Nothing Coherent.

enough energy released to accomplish it. Hence, much explosive would be needed.

Logic.

But, FWIW, no there was no "pulverization" beyond what would be expected in a very violent collapse.

large amounts of dust begins to appear @ the earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure.

most of the concrete was pulverized; the evidence for this is overwhelming.

Once again, a simple question.

saying that, as was posted above, if one believes that the collapse was initiated by gravity after the supporting trusses, columns and core were weakened enough to allow it to occur, then an "assist" by explosives would not require nearly what NIST hypothesized.

"NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none. If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?"

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

He also postulates that the explosives would have to be placed strategically, and that much more would have to go into exploding the mechanical levels because they were especially fortified. But, since they were mechanical levels rather than tenant-occupied floors, placing explosives there would have been a reasonably easy task to perform undetected. Also, regarding the planes hitting in the right place...honing devices could have directed the planes to those locations in tandem with remote controls. The technology clearly exists and there are many players involved in such technology who stood to benefit and whose multiple connections each to the other are more than mere coincidence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.

That was a calculation for the amount of thermite that would be required to do the structural damage that NIST attributes to the plane crash and the fire -- not an "assisted collapse" as Ross claims, but a collapse not involving an airplane. You need to be careful reading Ross; he's a very disingenuous fellow.

He meant the amount of thermite required would need to be far less than NIST calculated, since the planes and fires did do damage; we can discount the amount hypothesized because it would only need to be enough to assist the collapse.

NIST doesn't think there was any thermite at all required. Ross is the one claiming that the plane and fire damage wasn't enough. If that's his hypothesis, then why would he use NIST's calculation of what it would take to do the same damage as the plane crash and the fire? Either he is confused, or he was deliberately trying to make NIST look ridiculous by misrepresenting their thermite calculation. Sorry, but Ross is the one ending up looking ridiculous by making that false claim: "This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none."

By the way, Ross isn't doing so well in his efforts to prove that anything more than the crash and the fire were required.

because they were hypothesizing using thermite without the plane and fire damage. What he is saying is, if NIST says that the collapse would happen the way it did with NO thermite (i.e., gravity only), then why would they estimate an amount of thermite that does not account for the plane and fire damage? One would need less than the amount calculated because the thermite would merely be assisting the gravity collapse, not producing it entirely.

I would be interested in links from any credible sources you can provide discounting Ross's efforts.

NIST said what their thermite calculation was. Ross tried to pull a fast one by misrepresenting it, in order to accuse them of faulty logic. Read your own quote again. Ross is a disingenuous person. He did the same type of blatant misrepresentation of Greening's hypothesis of how there could be have been natural thermite reactions going on, and for the same purpose: to make Greening look foolish, in order to make his own weak arguments look more credible.

Anyway, here's Greening's response to Ross' first attempt at analyzing the collapse: http://www.journalof911studies.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf

Ross published a response, which started off something like "Suppose Dr. Greening is right..." (translation: okay, I screwed up) and then proceeded to offer a new argument that considered what would happen if he extended his analysis a little farther in time. I haven't seen Greening's response to that (perhaps it's not published yet), but Ross' new argument was discussed fairly extensively on the JREF forum. The main problems are:

(1) he took energy out of the "energy balance" calculation by assuming that two floors were destroyed in the initial collapse impact -- one in the falling block and one in the tower below -- but then calculated a kinetic energy for the combined mass of everything above then falling one more floor, whereas if two floors were destroyed, then the combined mass of those two fell one floor but the rest of the tower above fell two floors before the next impact;

(2) he assumed that compression of the columns would distribute momentum for many floors below the collapse by accelerating the attached floors, but he didn't take into account the dissipation of energy in the column joints or the inertia of those floors (he assumed them to to be instantly accelerated), both of which would not likely allow the compression to go as far down the building in the alloted time as he assumed;

(3) he ended his analysis with many floors in motion but with the columns in between at their full elastic limit, and then didn't take into account that the columns would then need to stop those floors from moving (i.e. the energy used to accelerate those floors was only "borrowed" not lost);

(4) most importantly, even without those errors, Ross ended up with only a small "energy deficiency" but doesn't take into account that his one-dimensional analysis (as if the top fell straight down and uniformly distributed the impact on columns that remained vertical up to their full theoretical limit) is simply not realistic: in the real chaotic and asymmetric collapse, a lot of columns would simply be knocked over to the side before they reached that failure mode.

There were more criticisms than that, but those are the ones I thought were most damaging to Ross' analysis.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html

This is dated 12/6/06 and in this he doesn't apologize or imply that he screwed up, but rather that Dr. Greening is a fruitcake. He also discusses various rebuttals on the JREF forum. Is this Ross's answer to which you referred above? Or is there something more current?

Edited to add: I am not the only person to have read NIST's thermite "calculations" as above and, therefore, that Ross is not misrepresenting NIST.

"NIST's argument against thermite having been used in demolition supposes that thermite was the only method used. Since Steven Jones and others suggesting thermite use do not endorse pure-thermite theories, NIST's is essentially a straw-man argument."

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

Here is an excellent, detailed rebuttal to NIST's report, by the way:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/350777.shtml

Ross didn't say NIST put up a straw-man calculation; he implied that they were too illogical to be taken seriously. Read your own quote again.

Ross doesn't seem to have his reply to Greening's criticism of Ross' collapse analysis on his site now. (Edit: Ross' article does have some insignificant responses to Greening's collapse analysis, which I forgotten because of their weakness, so I retract this statement from my previous post: The article you quoted says nothing about Greening's response to that analysis. Ross nit-picks at minor issues and ignores all the strong reasons for rejecting his analysis.) And the only thing Ross says about the JREF discussion of that analysis is that R.Mackey (an engineer) pointed out that the cross-bracing in the core towers was insufficient to hold the columns vertical until they reached plastic failure as Ross assumed (which was only one of the points I mentioned). And again, Ross disingenuously claims that R.Mackey says there was no cross-bracing, when the point was that there wasn't nearly enough to restrain all of the columns in all horizontal directions, which is what would be required for Ross' analysis to be valid. Many of the core columns had no cross-bracing at all, and few if any were braced in two directions, so even the columns that were braced in only one direction would be free to be pushed over perpendicular to that bracing. Ross is a disingenuous fellow. (Edit: Ross also ignores that the perimeter columns, which carried 40% of the gravity loads, were only restrained by the joist seats in the direction perpendicular to the wall, and we know from the debris that most of the perimeter columns broke free at those joints before they buckled. So the impact that Ross assumed was absorbed and distributed by downward momentum transfer by those columns is simply unrealistic.)

But that Ross article is the one I was referring to when I said that Ross also made disingenuous attacks on Greening, similar to the one on NIST. Take a close look at it:

"Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, ..."

It would be hard to imagine that they were not!

"... thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, ..."

Eh? You don't get thermite unless it "exactly the required proportion?" Sounds dubious to me since it's just fuel and oxidant; I'd expect that you'd just get inefficient thermite if it wasn't "exactly" right.

"... which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse."

And right here, where Ross himself invents "intelligent thermite" and tries to say Greening must be an idiot for thinking up such a silly thing, we see Ross doing exactly the same disingenuous straw-man tactic that he used to try to make NIST look illogical. Ross is the one with the theory that thermite may have been used to destroy the structure, not Greening; Greening was simply explaining why thermite reaction bi-products might be found in the dust! Greening has no need for the "intelligent thermite" to "distribute itself to key structural points throughout the tower." Is Ross simply showing an astounding lack of intelligence when he makes attacks like this and the one on NIST's thermite calculation, or is he deliberately trying to fool the gullible reader into thinking that Greening and NIST are a bunch of idiots? Personally, I don't think Ross is quite that stupid, so I have to conclude that he believes his target audience is.

Look, its time to quit politely debating these grifters. They are con-men selling fear and lies and Right-wing paranoia to gullible fools.

Say it like it is.

I don't think that's quite fair; in fact, to say it "like it is", it is downright rude. I am merely a citizen engaged in an attempt to discern the truth, which I don't think any of us has really been told. In fact, I believe that the "gullible fools" are those who buy the official story.

Sure, you are "just asking questions". No agenda at all.


Right.

On the very narrow question of the collapse of those buildings, "the Truth" is completely established. All experts are in agreement and there no serious counter-arguments have been raised.

The ONLY possible motive (and meaning) to these Controlled Demolition theories is to demonstrate the existence of a vast sinister conspiracy (the Secret Shadow Government or the minority group of your choice) that has such enormous power and resources that it can do ridiculously unnecessary things such as totally demolish buildings with 100s of tons of explosives -after- hitting them with airplanes.

-Where- have I heard of this conspiracy before? Think.

Represent if you want.

I don't know, but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to "Operation Northwoods", a documented U.S. government "false flag" operation that proposed to "sacrifice" (to use Bush's word) hundreds or thousands of citizens in an effort to advance some rather "sinister" "agendas".

Michigan Militia? Montana Freemen?

Try those.

As to Operation Northwoods, you -do- know about it, so it ain't all -that- secret. As to its sinistrality, I'd suggest you do some reading outside the confines of Conspiracy Hobbyist World.

Truthfully, I've never been interested enough to puzzle this one out. But, actually executing -any- complex operation that would "sacrifice" thousands of American Citizens would be an extraordinarily dangerous endeavour, almost certain to be revealed with deadly consequences for the perpretrators.

"The only way 3 people can keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead."

as I am sure you know. As for Operation Northwoods, yes we know about it, 40 years after the fact. Is that how long it will take for the truth about this to be told? I certainly hope not, as we are moving rapidly in an extremely dangerous direction, and if the people of the world are being deliberately misled then they cannot hope to act on/react to the full details properly without knowing them.

I do read outside of the conspiracy world, quite a lot actually. As I said, I try to keep an open mind and do consider any explanations within the realm of possibility.

As for keeping secrets, I think the threats against spilling them are enough of a deterrent. How many people have "mysteriously" died who were investigating various government conspiracies? How many have been gagged? How many have had their reputations ruined? It clearly doesn't pay to tell the truth or even just to look for it if the matter at hand is monumental enough.

I thought I saw some possiblility of rational discourse.

I was wrong.

Good bye. Good luck with the LooseChange crowd.

Thanks for the discussion

'All experts are in agreement and there no serious counter-arguments have been raised', will not make it true.

"Ross also ignores that the perimeter columns, which carried 40% of the gravity loads, were only restrained by the joist seats in the direction perpendicular to the wall, and we know from the debris that most of the perimeter columns broke free at those joints before they buckled."

Seems to me that he believes they were made to break free by explosives, not that they didn't break free at all. In fact, I deduce that he believes it was necessary to break these connections in order for the collapse to occur but that the issue is how they broke at all.

Why is it hard to imagine that the aircraft parts were not entirely pulverized upon impact? I have been pondering this recently myself and it seems to me that I read somewhere that parts of the aircraft were visible through the holes. Also, didn't the engine fly out of the south tower? Isn't Fox saying that the nose cone ejected from the building as well?

As regards the thermite mix, I believe he is pointing out that Greening's formulation would require a nearly impossible serendipitous mix of exactly the right amount of chemicals to produce it. Is there something that indicates that Greening's happenstance mix would be sufficient to produce the same results as actual thermite put into strategic place? And that it would be possible, to begin with?

And for the "straw man" comment, that was not mine nor was it Ross's. It came from the site I linked to the comment.

> Seems to me that he believes they were made to break free by explosives, not that they didn't break free at all. In fact, I deduce that he believes it was necessary to break these connections in order for the collapse to occur but that the issue is how they broke at all.

I was referring to his analysis of the collapse as an "unassisted" collapse, which has nothing to do with his explosives hypothesis. He first needs to prove that the collapse couldn't have occurred unassisted before speculating about assistance. As a simplification, he basically assumed (as did Greening) that one floor's columns disappeared and the top block fell straight down on the tower below, uniformly distributing the impact loads up to the plastic limit of those columns. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a simplified model (in fact it's necessary, or it becomes too complicated to analyze), but when you get to inferring conclusions from a simple model, you need to exercise some judgment to determine whether your conclusion might be altered by a more realistic model. Greening found that his analysis showed the collapse would continue even with that overly-optimistic assumption, so there was no need to re-analyze with an assumption that some columns would be knocked to the side before they reached their plastic limit. Ross found a relatively small "energy deficiency" that he claimed would halt the collapse, but even if everything else about the analysis was accurate (which it wasn't) then it becomes important to his conclusion whether the uniform distribution assumption is accurate and whether all the columns would reach their elastic limit. Ross complained about a "double standard" of accepting Greening's simplified model while questioning his use of a similar simplification, apparently unaware that the situation was not symmetric -- that the issue was whether making the model more realistic would change the "collapse continues" or "collapse halted" inferences of the two analyses. And in that respect, the fact that the perimeter columns were held in one direction by the joist seats becomes important, as does the fact that the core columns were not fully cross-braced like a truss tower. Ross needs to prove the collapse needed assistance, but he's inferring that from a faulty analysis and then simply speculating where the assistance came from.

> Why is it hard to imagine that the aircraft parts were pulverized upon impact? I have been pondering this recently myself and it seems to me that I read somewhere that parts of the aircraft were visible through the holes. Also, didn't the engine fly out of the south tower? Isn't Fox saying that the nose cone ejected from the building as well?

Why is it hard to imagine that some of the aircraft was pulverized and some wasn't? Some of the aircraft had to cut through the steel perimeter columns and floor slabs, but some only passed through windows, and some from the rear sections of the plane passed into areas which had already been destroyed. Yes, one engine passed through the building, apparently because it passed between floors and didn't hit any core columns. I would seriously doubt that the nose cone made it through, but again it would simply depend on what it hit on the way.

> As regards the thermite mix, I believe he is pointing out that Greening's formulation would require a nearly impossible serendipitous mix of exactly the right amount of chemicals to produce it.

Yes, I understand what he's claiming there, and I don't accept it. I don't see any need for the mix to be "exactly the right amount" unless you're concerned about efficiency -- not too much unused fuel and not too much unused oxidant. But the only issue Greening was addressing was whether or not there could be any natural thermite reactions at all, not necessarily efficient ones.

> Is there something that indicates that Greening's happenstance mix would be sufficient to produce the same results as actual thermite put into strategic place?

And again, where is this "produce the same results as actual thermite put into strategic place" coming from? That's Ross' outrageous and disingenuous straw-man. Greening did NOT claim that natural thermite reactions had ANYTHING to do with the collapse! Greening was attempting to explain why, for example, Dr. Jones might find thermite bi-products in the dust debris. (And by the way, in addition to pulverized aluminum from the plane, a lot of aluminum cladding was ground against rusted steel in the collapse.) If the bi-products found in the dust and debris were simply from naturally produced thermite, then it's not evidence of intentional demolition. That's all Greening claimed.

"He first needs to prove that the collapse couldn't have occurred unassisted before speculating about assistance."

You are asking him to prove the negative: prove to me that it did not/could not occur without an assist.

First, prove to me that it did. FEMA couldn't, and neither could NIST, who, to use your phrase, "inferred conclusions from a simple model" and didn't even allow the possibility of others (in fact, they chose the extreme case in their scenarios when apparently the less extreme case would explain--or not explain--what happened equally well or equally poorly).

As to what Greening found in his analysis, is it open to debate by, at least, Gordon Ross, or are you claiming that Greening is 100% correct? It may be that Ross's rebuttal to Greening is "weak" but it doesn't follow from that that Greening's hypothesis is conclusive. Whether or not Ross's analysis of Greening's work is faulty, or whether Ross's hypothesis is faulty, is in fact the main issue. But you seem to seek to discard the discussion by insisting that Greening is right and Ross is wrong by asserting that Greening has somehow proven his thesis and Ross has not, when the gist of it truly is that you believe Ross has not sufficiently answered Greening's critique as part of a pattern of distorting what his critics say in order to dodge the argument.

I altered my post by inserting "not" before "pulverized" but you replied to the original. I meant, why is it hard to imagine the plane was not in fact left at least partially intact. Regardless, you have answered the question either way by saying some of it would be smashed to pulp and other parts of it not depending on where and what it hit. This, of course, makes perfect sense. But you seemed previously to firmly believe that it would have to have been pulverized, apparently agreeing with Greening. I really do not think that any researcher/theorist can claim one or the other. It is apparently conjecture in the absence of evidence--and therefore any competing theories need to allow for and analyze the possibility of and also the degree to which pulverization would or would not affect the outcome.

Regarding thermite, naturally occurring or manufactured: I suppose that there could be natural thermite reactions although I really do have to suspend my disbelief to accept that they were substantial enough and at just the critical points to assist a collapse. But, if all Greening is arguing is that natural thermite was a possibility, and that that might explain how Dr. Jones found evidence of it in the samples he examined, then I am willing to accept that limited premise with the disclaimer that I am not trained in chemistry and so my opinion may or may not be valid at all. While it does appear that Ross wants to take it a step further by the use of the term "intelligent thermite", Greening wants to undercut the presence of traces of thermite in Dr. Jones samples; perhaps Ross's meaning is simply that the traces of thermite that would be present if naturally occurring would differ from what Dr. Jones examined.

Again.
The major argument for Controlled Demolition is: "It is --impossible-- that the plane impact and fires could have caused the collapse."

Anyone making that argument must show that --NO-- mechanism could lead to collapse. Not that the NIST report is wrong. Not that "the Pancake Theory" is silly. You must show that there is --NO-- mechanism that can lead to collapse. No defective design. No sloppy construction.

NO MECHANISM OF COLLAPSE.

That's just the logic of it.

On Burden of Proof, the consensus of expert opinion is that the collapse was due to damage and fire. If you believe that --all-- the world's structural engineers and architects are wrong, it is --your-- job to provide a solid refutation. I've seen nothing remotely resembling that.

but that doesn't make it so.

Because there is a middle ground, an argument that posits the collapse resulted from both the plane and fire damage and "assists".

So far, no one has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the buildings collapsed solely due to one, or the other, or a combination of both. And until or unless someone does, the rest of the world will go on researching, arguing and debating it. The burden of proof lies on everyone who proposes to provide it. I do not propose to provide proof. I am not a scientist. But I reserve the right to read what scientists, researchers and experts from all walks have to say about it, what they have tested in order to answer these questions. I don't believe the official story because there is too much about it to doubt, and I will continue to do so in the absence of absolute proof that it is true.

As I've been saying repeatedly, all the -evidence- is of vast destruction that would require an impossibly, ridiculously vast amount of explosives. What evidence is there of "assisted collapse"?

It is not just "how I see it". There is a complete consensus of the structural engineering and architectural communities that the buildings -could- have collapsed from structural damage and fire. In that situation it's just not rational to take the contrary position as certain, or even probable.

Apply some common sense here: If a small "assist" could make the building fall, how can you be -certain- that the planes and fire could not have supplied that little additional boost?

There is a sense in which we can never be totally certain of anything--perhaps we are butterflies dreaming we are men. But in the real world, we have to apply filters to the possibilities. Absent some -actual evidence- of 'assisted collapse' the only rational conclusion is that the buildings fell because they were damaged by airplanes and fire.

No, I have seen no rock-solid indisputable evidence of "assisted collapse"; merely theories backed by scientific research and some hypothesizing.

If there is complete consensus among those communities I think by now the matter would have been laid to rest; but apparently it has not because from what I have seen many of their respective members do continue to debate among themselves. There are raging debates on various "scientific" (mainly physics) fora that engage it in ad nauseum. I wish, frankly, that we could all feel so secure that everything in the official story had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but if I were in a jury to decide the matter, I feel that it would be "hung" for quite a long time.

I cannot, of course, be sure that the planes and fire could not have supplied that little additional boost, but there is enough doubt being cast on it to cause a great many people to continue analyzing it and researching it. Surely, the doubting Thomases among us are not, in your estimation, all stark-raving mad? Are we not allowed to remain skeptical in the absence of absolute proof that the official story line is 100% true--particularly when one approaches the subject from a forensic standpoint and asks the questions regarding means, motive and opportunity as well as "cui bono"?

In my mind, the real world presents a dilemma and that dilemma is whether or not to trust the official explanation or to look at it more closely and ask myself what parts of it continue to remain a mystery. Just because there is--as yet--no "actual evidence" of assisted collapse doesn't mean I can say the possibility of it does not exist. The gray areas, the things that remain in the shadows, are what bother me and prevent me from throwing it out altogether.

These guys spend their days trying to get gullible people to say what you just said: "I have seen no rock-solid indisputable evidence of 'assisted collapse.'"

In fact there's an abundance of evidence that the official theory is impossible and that the towers were destroyed using engineered devices. I ran a thread using photographs to help make this point crystal clear:

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965


edited after I got your very nice reply.

I really feel that I have not seen rock-solid evidence, but have seen evidence that is substantial enough to make me believe that this theory makes the most sense. I certainly do not believe the official story, at all.

Don't worry, fellow CTer, my knickers aren't that easy to pull down. If you could hear the arguments I have with my brother, who still believes in the lone gunman theory, you'd know backing down is not my thing.

P.S. I will read through your thread.

And I'm glad you're not mad! :hi:

My skin is way thicker than that!:P

Certainly not me.

The questions under discussion are very narrow ones. Is there really any reasonable doubt that damage and fire --could-- have resulted in collapse? Are the CD theories even remotely plausible?

The answers to these questions are "No doubt at all" and "So tell me what your fucking theory is".

I don't doubt that there are Internet "Physics Forums" in which CTers post--and get hammered royally. I also don't doubt that there are "Physics Forums" which are thinly disguised CT sites. That's irrelevant.

What ---IS--- relevant is the considered opinion of the expert community that actually has expertise and experience in the construction and destruction of tall buildings-- the structural engineers and architects and Demolition experts. It is absolutely, indisputably clear that the consensus of that community is that the towers fell from damage and fire and that additional demolition is improbable.

I've also explained (many times) the logic of the situation: To support CD, you -must- show that the natural collapse is ---IMPOSSIBLE---. And that's impossible.

This is my very last post on this.

Good bye. And good luck in CTLand.
You'll need it.

I mean you sound a little like Rummy, here.

I know what you think, that the fires and plane impacts no doubt resulted in the collapse and that the CD theories are not plausible at all. And on these two points we absolutely do disagree.

What you want me to do is to tell you exactly what my theory is, and I have told you I don't have one. I have questions, not answers. If I had the answers I wouldn't have questions. And if I had no questions I wouldn't be looking for answers.

What I don't get is why you are so adamantly opposed to "CTers". What is wrong with searching for more? What is wrong with questioning authority? If I stopped doing that I would cease to be me. I would apparently be you.

In some ways, I feel as though I am arguing with my younger brother, who just simply cannot believe that such a high percentage of citizens have doubts and believe the "government" was involved in 9/11. But, then, he also told me election theft was impossible and that there was no war on the middle class (he has since changed his tune on that). As someone said, once the biggest CT was that Iraq had no WMD. If you ask me, the CT was that they DID. And who pushed THAT CT? A bunch of persons considered "authorities" or a bunch of whack-jobs? Or do you really believe that the intelligence failed?

As Kevin Ryan points out, there is only a small group of experts who happened to have been involved in every "official" report. And they all have something to protect, namely lucrative government contracts. Why did Ryan's boss suddenly resign after NIST's report came out? Why did UL fire Ryan for merely stating his objections to Frank Gayle? Didn't he have any legitimate points to make at all? If so, why not address them instead of showing him the door? Meanwhile, the design engineers, i.e., Skilling, expressed that the buildings were in fact designed to withstand the fires and the damage, both. They engineered according to the distinct possibilities of jetliners loaded with fuel. From what I have read, the jets (707s and DC-8s) were not significantly different from 767s in this scenario, and had less fuel on board than they anticipated.

I require that to convince me of the natural collapse, the explanation have absolutely no holes at all, not that you must also disprove CD. Why must you require that I disprove the natural collapse in order to support CD? I don't ask you to disprove CD in order to support the natural collapse.

> You are asking him to prove the negative:

First, some breaking news: Yes, it's possible to "prove a negative" whenever it's possible to falsify the affirmative. That old saw about the supposed impossibility of proving a negative only applies to cases where falsifying the affirmative isn't possible, such as proving that God or Bigfoot don't exist. I can, however, prove that New York City is not in Idaho because I can falsify the assertion that it is.

> prove to me that it did not/could not occur without an assist.

I consider that Bazant, Greening, and many others have already done that to the satisfaction of other experts -- not my own expertise -- and that I haven't seen any significant challenges to those proofs, including Ross', that experts have found credible. If they were wrong, Ross should be definitely be able to prove it scientifically and mathematically.

> But you seem to seek to discard the discussion by insisting that Greening is right and Ross is wrong by asserting that Greening has somehow proven his thesis and Ross has not, when the gist of it truly is that you believe Ross has not sufficiently answered Greening's critique as part of a pattern of distorting what his critics say in order to dodge the argument.

I didn't "discard the discussion"; I replied to your posts, didn't I, and didn't you have the opportunity to support Ross if you think he's correct? If Ross or anyone else comes up with an analysis that other experts consider valid and persuasive, then I'll defer to the experts.

> But you seemed previously to firmly believe that it would have to have been pulverized, apparently agreeing with Greening.

Nonsense; there was no assertion by me, nor do I recall any such assertion from Greening, that the plane needed to be completely "pulverized", and there is no need for any such assumption. There just needs to be some aluminum dust ending up on rusted steel, either from the plane crash or from the aluminum cladding grinding against rusted steel in the collapse.

Of course, the whole point of the natural thermite argument is, if there really are thermite bi-products in the debris (which I believe is still an open question, anyway), and there were no other ways for it to get there unless someone planted thermite, then Jones would have a very strong case for an intentional demolition. But if there is an explanation that doesn't require intentional planting -- and if fact, that natural thermite reactions should be expected -- then Jones' case becomes very weak, and some other type of evidence needs to be found. Personally, I've always found the thermite hypothesis implausible simply because there doesn't seem to be any known practical way to use it to cut through thick vertical columns.

"I can, however, prove that New York City is not in Idaho because I can falsify the assertion that it is." But can you prove that planes were flown by 19 Saudi hijackers into the World Trade Center towers and as a result of the impacts and the fires they totally collapsed at nearly free-fall speed? And what about WTC7?

If everyone were satisfied with Bazant, Greening, et al, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one else would look elsewhere for explanations. If you feel you are satisfied, I am curious how you can feel so absolutely certain about this. Can you say why you do?

I don't necessarily support Ross. I think he makes a good case, that's all. I merely want to understand the criticism against him and I don't think that accusing him of dodging the argument or seeming to be "disingenuous" is enough to throw his work out. He professes to be open to refutation but it appears that you would paint him otherwise. I guess I don't see that as clearly as you do, but I do appreciate your input and I am considering it in weighing the relative validity of his theory. Have you personally responded to Ross, and if so, what did you question? Did he respond? Or did he ignore you and/or dance around the issues you raised?

Apparently we agree there is no need to prove the planes were completely pulverized; I don't see how it is germane to the argument, myself. But it seemed that Ross was saying that Greening's theory to hold up required that the planes would have to have been pulverized, and you seemed to agree that the planes were, in fact, pulverized. Again, I don't think it is germane unless Ross's point is that it would require ALL of the aluminum in the planes' parts to comprise enough to make "natural thermite" in sufficient quantities to have any bearing (no pun intended) on the collapse. And, since we concur that Greening merely meant that the requisite materials existed to create it and account for the presence of thermite in Jones's samples, I believe that it is now a moot point in our discussion, although it is now apparent to me that Ross meant that while the elements were there, they weren't there in the correct quantities to create an explosive mix capable of doing the job.

> I am curious how you can feel so absolutely certain about this. Can you say why you do?

Yes, I certainly can: Because it just makes sense to me. If it didn't make sense, I'd probably still accept the preponderance of the evidence and the expert opinion, but that's not the case. As for the 19 Arabs, can you say that you didn't expect some kind of terrorist attack? Airport security at the time was focused on preventing people from smuggling bombs on board to destroy just the plane. In hindsight, it's easy to think we should have been prepared for using the planes as weapons, and I think it was a major failure of the government that we weren't, but I see incompetence and irresponsibility rather than complicity in that. As for the building collapses, I think I have a pretty good grasp of how the collapse started, and what happened after that. A lot of the specifics of the collapse have to do with the particular design of those buildings, but in general, buildings are simply not designed to withstand that kind of damage. Once the collapes started, I would have been astonished to see them halted by the structure below. My common sense (and some incidental familiarity with structural engineering) tell me that the forces involved were simply beyond standard safety factor.

But then, there's also the problem that the alternate explanations are so totally implausible. Even if I assume that someone wanted to plan a "false flag" operation, why the hell would anyone plan something so ridiculously elaborate and risky (in terms of failing and risk of getting caught) when something much simpler and less risky could accomplish the same presumed purpose? Why take any chance of being caught in the act, or any of the people involved talking, or having any incriminating evidence left around? Why plan something that involved such a major deception as flying planes into buildings and then faking the building failures, when they could avoid all that complexity and risk by simply doing something that required very few people and was exactly what it appeared to be, except for who did it? That makes NO sense to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You go by what "makes sense" to you, and so do I.

The "19 Arabs" pose some real problems for me. For one, that apparently as many of seven of them are still alive (per the BBC). If that's true, why hasn't this been cleared up? If their passports/identities were stolen, again why, and also who used them? Have you read the accounts of the 50-200 Israeli spies that were operating in the U.S. in "close proximity" to the "lead" hijackers? The accounts of Israel's warnings in advance of the attacks? Is it not possible that the plot/plans were known in advance and then, allowed to happen or even helped along? Why were these stories hushed up rather than followed up, and why were these "spies" quietly released and deported? How about the 5 Israeli men supposedly working for a moving company filming the attacks, jumping up and down/dancing excitedly--and when picked up by the FBI and questioned were found to be Mossad agents with military intelligence backgrounds? What part did they play, if any?

"According to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. (13) It was the largest spy ring to ever be uncovered in the history of the United States. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation." What happened to these stories? Fox's report by Carl Cameron (a four-part series) disappeared altogether from their website, which announced "this story no longer exists".

...more on that here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timelin ...

You say: "A lot of the specifics of the collapse have to do with the particular design of those buildings, but in general, buildings are simply not designed to withstand that kind of damage. Once the collapes started, I would have been astonished to see them halted by the structure below."

But, the first, most basic question is what initiated the collapse, isn't it? You say that the buildings weren't designed to withstand "that kind of damage", yet the design engineers said they were designed to withstand fire beyond the time they stood and were designed to absorb the impact of Boeing 707 or M-D DC8 planes traveling 600 mph. "Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity....Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707."

The WTC's on-site construction manager, Frank DeMartini, hired after the 1993 attack, and who reportedly died on 9/11 while rescuing people, said that the buildings would absorb the impact. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The Madrid Windsor burned far longer and at higher temperatures and did not collapse. The building was similar in design and although planes did not fly into it, would the plane impacts alone have caused the collapse? The WTC engineers anticipated the release of large volumes of jet fuel and still maintained the buildings would have stood.


You ask: ..."why the hell would anyone plan something so ridiculously elaborate and risky (in terms of failing and risk of getting caught) when something much simpler and less risky could accomplish the same presumed purpose?"

To this, I can only reply: The PNAC called for a "big event", because only something of that magnitude would galvanize public opinion in such a way as to generate sufficient support for what was planned to occur. What "big event" could be staged or allowed to happen in any way that had less risk of exposure attached to it? Even the anthrax attacks haven't escaped public scrutiny and charges of FBI cover-ups. I do not necessarily rule-out the validity of the hijacking plot in the same way I do not rule out that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, or that the attack on Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen on purpose.

Again, "they" had the motive, means and opportunity to make or let this happen on purpose--even the ability to fly the planes remotely and interrupt/control transmission waves to the extent that satellite communications experienced problems on that day (why?). And, finally, one must "follow the money" or ask "cui bono"? There are "many players playing very dark games" who in fact have reaped some very substantial rewards in the big PNAC game plan.

And just where IS Osama bin Laden, anyway?

The supposed evidence of demolition requires enormously massive quantities of explosives (or thermate or whatever--"Pulverization", "Free-Fall", "Pools of Molten Metal".

That evidence is presented as "proof" of a massive Gov't conspiracy.

THEN

we get an argument that only small qty's of material would be needed to assist the collapse.

-Possible- but there is no evidence of THAT.


This is bullshit.

It is pointless and counterproductive to argue the specifics of the situation. The whole argument is a con and the appropriate response is to call BULLSHIT and walk away.

Out of your ass?

I'd also like to know.

To "pulverize" steel and concrete far beyond what's possible from gravity?
To destroy virtually all resistance on each of 80 floors to produce "Free Fall?
To produce molten pools of metal that would last for weeks?

Yeah, I'm pulling the figure out of my ass.

But, it's conservative.

How much do you think the plane impacts and fires affect the amount of explosives required?

Yes, small charges to assist the collapse are --conceivable--. But there are serious problems with that:

1. Why would anybody do that? Planting the explosives would be a vast risk for meager gain.

2. How do you know where the planes are going to hit? Are the pilots --so-- good that they can hit a predetermined floor? The collapses began with the floors hit by the planes. The explosives had to be --there--.

3. How do you protect the explosives from the fire and impact?

4. There is absolutely no evidence of such charges. Nor would there be. --ALL-- the evidence is of vast destruction that would require many many charges and many tons of explosive. After the (small) explosion, an "assisted collapse" would proceed in exactly the same way as an unassisted collapse.

What we have here is a "belief in search of evidence." The CTers are utterly convinced that the Secret Shadow Government destroyed the towers and will promote -any- evidence that points to that--however ridiculous and internally contradictory it becomes.

1. Maybe explosives were of some type that would not be so obvious? Maybe explosions involved some advanced technology that you/we know nothing about?

2. Re: targeting the planes. The technology exists to remotely maneuver aircraft to precise locations. We never saw the pilots, never saw their bodies, never talked to any survivors who did.

3. Perhaps there are explosives that do not react to fire and impact, or perhaps there are and the planes upon impact detonated them by design. Some of the explosions heard could have been explosives reacting to fire--why not utilize the heat/fire to activate something in the proximity and blame it on "fuel lines" or something else? Is it not possible there are other means to blow something up? Directed energy beams, for instance?

4. The only evidence I know of is the thermite/thermate Dr. Jones has analyzed and that is apparently hotly debated. Again, why not some "unconventional" explosive material or technology? We have no evidence of that either other than guesswork based on videotapes and photographs and sonographs. Too bad the preponderance of forensic evidence was made off-limits to independent research and hauled away for recycling (which is, in itself enough to raise suspicions about the official story).

We have a belief in search of evidence regardless of which side you are on.

Absent -any- evidence of any such unconventional means even existing, much less being used, this is just a ridiculous argument.

Are you -sure- the buildings were not collapsed by Space Aliens with laser death rays? Or Steel Eating Nanobots? Mini-Nukes? Can you --PROVE-- there were not Romulan Disruptor Rays from Space?

Why are you so stuck on this silly theory anyway? It has utterly nothing to do with the evil of the Bush Admin, or even with the authorship of 911. --IF-- the CIA planned and executed 911 they absolutely WOULD NOT have taken the risk and expense of planting explosives in buildings they intended to hit with jetliners. Get real.

The only possible sense of this theory is as proof of the sinister Secret Shadow Government of supernatural power and omniscient knowledge.

GOOD NIGHT.

but they must at least make some rational sense. Space Aliens, death rays and the like are a bit too "out there" for me, but an assisted collapse is not.

I'm not "stuck on" anything, I'm just keeping an open mind. And I don't think that is a bit silly, considering the magnitude of the event and all that it has wrought.

The government has considerable power and knowledge, and technology, and it is a bit too secretive for my comfort zone. And, yes, it has exhibited some very evil tendencies, particularly in the past few years. If I trusted those in authority, I would be a much happier person. If my mind allowed me to do so, I would be much relieved. I keep looking for reasons to believe but all I see is an escalation of lies, deceit and treachery which only increase my "feelings" that something indeed smells very fishy in Denmark.

with families, ideals, ambitions, flaws, debts, internet access....

"The Bush Administration" or "The Government" has recently (and always) done some awful deeds. But not in complete secrecy and not unjustifiable by -some- ideology or rationale. I remember VietNam, the invasion of Cambodia and Kent State. We -all- watched the move toward the Iraq invasion. The lies were absolutely clear to anyone paying attention.

It's --conceivable-- that someone could have planted small quantities of explosives in the towers. (But Terrorists could have done that just as easily as the CIA.) The standard CD evidence implies a scenario about as credible as Space Aliens--ridiculously, unnecessarily, massive qtys of explosives planted by---WHO?---Government employees?. GET REAL.

In evaluating -any- theory, you must look at the bigger picture. What is the "theory of the crime"? If you can think of no theory that would not put a half-bright 5th grader into a giggle-fit, the theory is probably idiotic.

Good bye.

What is the matter with some discourse, differing opinions on the subject?

To answer you, briefly:

I worked for/in "government" for 8 long years. I worked in a forensic environment. Let me just say that I saw enough ineptitude and enough covering up of details concerning high-level matters to convince me there are people at all levels who are capable of dark deeds and keeping them secret, and who have the means to do so.

Look at the whistleblowers and the gags the government has placed on them. Look at the 9/11 families and all of their unanswered questions. What is it the government is trying to hide, and why?

As regards the amount of explosives required, it seems to me that would depend on what type(s) of explosives were used, where they were placed, and how much damage the planes and fires really caused. I don't have that information on hand and NIST didn't explore it.

The theory of the crime? Do you mean the reason for it or the exact scenario that made it happen? I can think of many reasons for it. The scenario is what is being debated and I have no specific theory. I only disbelieve the official story and believe that something else brought down those towers. At this point, CD is what makes the most sense, to me.

From Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

There's lots more dialogue in the article... Taibbi summarizes:

None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

until he attended a seminar that woke him up.

Because if they used bombs the breach of security and the insurance problems would have made a lot of their friends go broke.

Why do you think they bought off the airlines so fast? The potential liability for the airlines was enormous, especially if anyone found out real bombs were involved or that the US shot down a passenger jet. Oh no, can't let anyone think that now, can we?

1. You saw ineptitude, laziness, coveringup in gov't. Yet "The Government" executed this vastly complex plan flawlessly and in complete secrecy? See any contradiction here?

2. What is the Gov't hiding? Ahhh...Ineptitude? OF COURSE the admin doesn't want investigations. These will reveal embarrassing things. Just not vast sinister conspiracies.

3. Whistleblowers: You know their names and stories, right? If one come forward with plans for a unique advance demolition device, he will be heard. But that hasn't happened.

4. Amount of explosives: We're talking "orders of magnitude" here. How much, to a power of 10, would be needed to "pulverize" most of the concrete and steel of several floors?

5. Discussion is fine. But there are rules. Respect the consensus opinions of experts. Drop arguments and evidence that have been refuted or disproved. State clear hypotheses and respond when those hypotheses are shown to be false.

"Just asking questions" is not discussion. It is mental masturbation.

Good bye.

Because in my experience, it takes ineptitude and laziness as well as covering up to prevent certain things from coming to light. Some people just don't care to look harder or are willing to look the other way and keep their mouths shut so they can keep their jobs. I've seen it first-hand.

They don't seem to be hiding ineptitude as it seems they are quite willing to say that they "didn't know" the planes would hit the buildings, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If a whistleblower is prevented from coming forward or is too frightened to do so, you can't hear any of what it is they are blowing the whistle on at all; it may be that they are stopped before they can even blow the whistle to begin with. If a whistleblower is gagged, you know the gist of what it is they are being shut up about but not the details. It could be that the details are the bomb or it could be that what they have to say in general can be allowed to slip out in a more general way that can be explained or that lacking details makes not enough sense to matter. Other whistleblowers are merely swift-boated to make them appear crazy or unreliable.

About the explosives: again, exactly how many explosives would it take? Does it depend on the type of explosives? Does it depend no how much actual damage the impact and fires caused? I would venture that it does. And, also again, perhaps the means of explosion were something you and I know nothing about, perhaps some kind of advanced technology that has previously been tested experimentally in some other scenario.

I do not have to respect anything or anyone's explanation if it leaves questions in my mind. I have only to wonder why the explanation didn't cover all the bases and search for alternatives.

It's not by choice that I continue to look for answers. It's because the answers given have not satisfied my troubled mind enough to put the entire matter to bed. I don't seek to pleasure myself by asking questions or doubting what I have been told. I would really rather not be bothered with it at all.

I can only go by what I saw on CBC. What sort of proof would you accept?

Funny, I didn't take you for a no-planer. I should have known better.

Sid

in order to prove something about the crime. Police & justice system does that all the time.

Problem with 9/11 is the evidence that exists does not support the OCT - regardless of what alternative theories are out there.

because I saw one do that live on TV on Sept 11, 2001. I might be able to prove that it happened to miranda's satisfaction (though I doubt it) but don't feel that it's a worthwile exercise. I'm confident enough in the plausibility of what I saw and what I've subsequently read, to believe it to be true, without making further effort to confirm it. (note - talking only about planes hitting the towers now, not about CD, or the Pentagon, or any other aspect of 9/11)

Now, if good evidence was presented that planes didn't actually crash into the towers, I would re-think my current position. Nothing I've seen to date, though, is good enough for me to consider that what I saw, and what really happened, are two different things.

Cheers.

Sid

And then still it covers only half of the alleged number of planes at the WTC.

Which comes back to my original point:

The problem with 9/11 is the evidence that exists does not support the OCT - regardless of what alternative theories are out there.

I think that live TV is as good as anything in terms of evidence.

Internet videos, on the other hand...

Sid

Sid

I've looked at the footage on CNN pipeline and those planes are wrong. There is footage of the photographers using wescams which are extremely sophisticated cameras that are used in football and other sports and can add in extra players and whatnot LIVE, but if you watch the footage you will see that the planes weren't really live usually, I think maybe one was, then it became the announcers would say could we have some footage of that with the plane? and then they would show this little blur coming in with the fireball as before it had just been the fireball (only the place where the plane would be didn't show before)
It's funny but I totally believed the planes were real, I just didn't think about it until I started arguing with people who said "they had to be there" and then I realized wait a minute, you know there is really no proof that they were there.
The witnesses also have huge problems and can be shown to be lying (most of them), ie: they were calling from a location to the north and they say they saw the plane go right in (well the 2nd plane went into the south side)

Were all networks, including foreign feeds all manipulated the same way, at the same time?

Sid

 

I just want to make sure I'm following this.

Is part of the reason you believe the footage was faked because you can see Wescam products in the footage? How did you determine that the Wescams aren't also faked? Or were they shown in the footage that wasn't faked?

- Make7

 

Here are a few accounts from some 2nd plane witnesses:











- Make7

> The problem with 9/11 is the evidence that exists does not support the OCT

No, the "problem" is that each and every piece of evidence that supporst the "OCT" is declared by (some) CTers to have been faked, no matter how implausible the scenario needs to be to make that claim. So, the goalpost gets moved; now you have to prove that the evidence wasn't faked. It's a total waste of time to try to prove anything to such people.

What an idiotic request.

in order to be able to synchronize our time, it's not really "Thursday" by any scientific means.
Wow, you guys are really weak on this argument.

Are you saying that today's date is not a question of fact?

You are behind by three days, but don't know it.

you said "today is...". There is a difference

jesus wept.

you've graduated to webfairy as an authority? Splendid.

1. I don't think Jones is "worthless" I question his involvement with the department of energy.

2. I think Webfairy is probably disinfo

You are inaccurate as usual

you objecting to being compared to the "no-planes" crowd some weeks back, are you one of those now?

is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

for being "firm" and "resolve"

Also you believe in "no-planes" now do you?

I don't trust anyone on the internet. I can see with my own eyes that the planes are faked and that the video footage fom 9-11 was heavily edited, that's all I know. The news announcers words and the fake witnesses were also scripted.

And he is as anti-bush as they come.

they were brought down by means other than plane impact and fire. And your other question was not complicated at all. The intent was clear. Thanks.
quickesst

Let's see, 1, no wait 2, no wait, 1, no no, 2, yeah thats it.

On second thought, lets use OCT guy's logic. Eenie, meanie, miney, mo. Catch a tiger by the toe.................Ok you win, 2.

Is there a 3rd option that I'm missing here?

Or are you displaying typical PCT logic - where you don't have any opinions of your own, you're just "asking questions".

Sid

The fact that the collapse began, apparently simultaneously, around the entire upper floor outer ring and possibly the inner core of Tower 1 rather suggests an explosion or rapid combustion of gasses such as carbon monoxide or other flammable vapor residue from the jet fuel, over-pressuring the area. "A room or area requires only 25 percent of its space to contain the explosive mixture for the entire area to explode."(Dunn, WNYF p9)

http://www.ericdarton.net/afterwords/fireandair.html


However, if this only happened to one building I would say it was an accident. Two buildings - I start to have my doubts. Three buildings - definitely on purpose.

It's been a while since I last had to worry about this, but carbon monoxide IIRC cannot combust.

the fireman I'm quoted was commenting on assorted scenarios that he thought were possibilities.

What was significant were his comments regard the build up of fumes from a fuel source and how much (or how little) it would take to overpressure an area and cause a large explosion.

I think that natural gas was a more likely source for the explosions that brought down the towers, and that it was used to take out the specific floors near the impact zone in each tower and then on the mechanical floors and then the base of the buildings.

a natural gas explosion in a Kansas town destroyed a section of the downtown. My parents live there so I heard all about it when it happened, but there is some good information (and pictures) on the internet.

Hutchinson Response Project by the Kansas Geological Survey

Photos from the local fire department

Natural gas explosions can be pretty nasty, but I don't know how easy it would be to plan for destruction of a large building - it seems that it would be difficult to predict what would happen.

and relays.

Similar to how they do regular CD's, everything is set up to happen in a certain order and all you have to do is flip one switch when the time comes.

As the collapses first began, for the first floor or two, all I can see in any of the videos are smoke being blown out at speeds that don't look like an explosion -- not anything I wouldn't expect to see with all the air being forced out of those floors -- and some perimeter columns buckling inward, or being broken loose on the floors immediately below where the collapse started. After the first floor or two, you start to see some concrete dust and some heavier debris being ejected, but again, not at speeds I would expect from an explosion. Structural failures are "explosive" to an extent, because internal strain is being released suddenly when members fail, but it seems to me that a gas explosion large enough to do major structural damage would be pretty unmistakable. Where do you see any evidence of any such explosion?

After that the building coming down from above covered and hide any explosions that might have occured on the next set of mechanical floors (42-45) and in the basement of couse we can see what was going on.

... until you find a still that looks like it might be a gas explosion. Watching it in real time, it looks nothing like a structure-destroying gas explosion to me; it happens too slowly. The smoke, flames, and dust look like they're simply being blown out of the building by the air that's being forced out. That's happening pretty quickly but not as rapidly as any type of explosion that can cause structural damage. (The fireball from 175's fuel, for example, expanded fairly slowly, but that't the reason that experts don't think that explosion caused enough over-pressure to do any significant damage.) I haven't seen any experts who agree with your perception that it looks like a gas explosion, either. Got any?

The fact that the collapse began, apparently simultaneously, around the entire upper floor outer ring and possibly the inner core of Tower 1 rather suggests an explosion or rapid combustion of gasses such as carbon monoxide or other flammable vapor residue from the jet fuel, over-pressuring the area. "A room or area requires only 25 percent of its space to contain the explosive mixture for the entire area to explode."(Dunn, WNYF p9)


http://www.ericdarton.net/afterwords/fireandair.html

And I'll see you one video.

.html

The fireball is very clear in this one but it gets covered over and snuffed out by they debris coming down from above.

Obviously this is the event that started the collapse of the building. I'd love to see what the steel looked like from the 91st and 92nd floors.

BTW: Where's the data on the steel from this part of the building? Has NIST or anyone else published this info?


Edit: to correct floor numbers

There was (and still is) a lot of speculation about what caused the collapse, but NIST did not find any evidence of a gas explosion that caused enough over-pressure to do structural damage to the core columns. That would take a lot of gas and it would need to be very well contained, and if there had been a gas explosion of that scale, it should have been very obvious from outside the building, too. Your video looks like a "gas explosion," but a low-pressure one: It looks like it's simply a lot of hot flammable gas that didn't have enough oxygen to burn until is was blown outward by the collapse, at which time it inflamed rapidly, or possibly it's the result of oxygen from the upper tower being pushed across existing fires like a bellows. But again, it doesn't look like it's moving fast enough to cause an over-pressure that could cause significant structural damage. If you watch a video of conventional explosives used to destroy steel columns, the cloud of smoke from the explosives develops very rapidly, within just a frame or two, and then slows down. The cloud of smoke and dust being ejected from the collapsing towers, in addition to appearing much slower than that, appears to accelerate over time instead of slowing down. And the explanation for that is that air being forced out at an accelerating rate because the collapse is proceeding at an accelerating rate.

So, I'm not buying the gas explosion hypothesis.

that is no explosion.

Note the slowly rolling clouds. With yer typical high order expansion, the gas expansion would be so fast that you would need high speed camera/film to capture a non blurry image this clear.

Note the lack of debris in front of the dust cloud. Large particles tend to move further and faster than small particles as dust particles tend to be more affected by air resistance. This dust looks to be moving about the same speed as air displacement, not explosive detonation. the clouds are far too 'billowy'.

If you watch the video the flame billows out, it is not like an explosive detonation. As an example C-4 explodes with a velocity over 24,000 fps.

Thats the third option. But for it to work you need to remove more than a couple load bearing members, and of course, given enough time, it will fall.

Now this isn't the same as a 110 story building, but the principle is the same, I saw a house have it's entire rear foundation wall and the posts supporting the main steel beam removed by a mudslide. Guess what happened to the house?

If you guessed, It did not fall down, you would be correct. You see, gravity takes time to do it's work. It stood that way for 2 days before new supports were put into place, it never did collapse.

I was in construction for over 20 years, both residential and commercial. Mostly commercial. I have built buildings Sid, have you? Do you have the faintest idea what holds a building erect? From the majority of your posts it appears you do not.

There was a time in my life when I was of the opinion that all people possessed common sense. I have learned, over the years, that this assumption was wrong. This board just confirms this.

Actually no, gravity is constant, it is the reduction of resistance that may take time. If a structure does not fail right away it will not fail until one or more elements of the circumstances changes. Weakening of individual components is one of them.

:toast:

Sid

or are you suggesting that it somehow changes? You may have worked in construction, but apparently you don't know the first thing about physics.

So, gravity brings down the towers (duh), because a number of load bearing members were removed. What removed them? Was it the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires? Or were the supports intentionally removed by controlled demolition?

What this board has confirmed for me is that there is a significant portion of the population that is sorely lacking in any sort of real and meaningful science education.

Sid

the stronger the gravitational force. So the gravitational force on a person at the top of a mountain is less than at sea level. So yes, it does change as distance changes.

So there, now you learned something about physics.

What do you do that qualifies you to judge the science education of others on this board?

So, how different is gravitational force when flying at 30,000 ft?

This is important because I am trying to lose weight and if I weigh myself the next time I take a flight somewhere, I can get some brownie points from my bride.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

an increased elevation the 300 pounds might be only be 299.99999 pounds

I should have typed that the gravitational force on the building is constant. I guess I was assuming too much that it was a given that I was talking about the towers, and not a person on a mountain vs a person at sea level.

Sid

Edit: and yes, I do know that gravitational force is an inverse square relationship based on distance. Thanks.

I got straight A's in Physics. It was one of my favorite classes, well along with Trig and Calc. Maybe it is my understanding of not only the construction aspects but also the science and forces involved that bother me about how these structures fell.

I guess the thing that really bothers me though, is why gentlemen like yourself, along with others, are so convinced that the aircraft and the ensuing fires caused enough actual and collateral damage to cause total structural failure. The design of these structures took into account a scenario equivalent to 9-11 and were built to withstand it.

If this is indeed the case the only plausible explanation is that the structural engineers, civil engineers, professional engineers and architects involved in the planning and erection of the towers were incompetent.

you've only about 40 classes left. Let me know when you've finished with them and we can have a productive discussion.

Basic physics is useless in understanding the chaotic collapse of a complex structure. You are applying simplistic principles to complex situations and fundamentally understanding the situation. A common phenomenon.

"the structural engineers, civil engineers, professional engineers and architects" of the entire world are convinced that "the aircraft and the ensuing fires caused enough actual and collateral damage to cause total structural failure".

Your opinion (and mine) are irrelevant.

As to whether "involved in the planning and erection of the towers were incompetent": hardly. The design may have "took into account a scenario equivalent to 9-11 and were built to withstand it". Maybe. Or maybe they hoped for the best. Theoretically the actual sequence of events is impossible. It would not be surprising if their opinion was not correct; the experiment had never been tried before. Professionals learn from experience.

for this statement:

The design of these structures took into account a scenario equivalent to 9-11 and were built to withstand it.

And you get a no go on this analyisis as well:

If this is indeed the case the only plausible explanation is that the structural engineers, civil engineers, professional engineers and architects involved in the planning and erection of the towers were incompetent.

for someone that is supposed to be experienced in construction these are extremely ignorant statements.

Can you show me the statement that they WERE NOT built to withstand a fully loaded aircraft traveling at 600 knots from crashing into them.

Secondly, if they were indeed designed to withstand that, then the engineers and architects failed miserably. Incompetence is just one word that can be used.

Can you explain, to me, why the original architects and engineers have not come forward and explained why their design failed? If it was my structure, the first thing I would be doing is going over my calculations and finding where my error was. The design failed, Why?

The buildings were designed to stand against the 90% threat.

They were designed to withstand a minor earthquake, not a 9.0.

They were designed to withstand a hurricane undamaged, not a category 5.

They were designed to stand for at least two hours in the event of a fire, not against one initiated by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 in a landing pattern at 200 kts, not a 767 at 500kts.

Please explain to ME why would any architect design an office building to these specs?

> The design of these structures took into account a scenario equivalent to 9-11 and were built to withstand it.

If that were true, tell me why the building design only specified standard "code" fireproofing (and a fairly new spray-on type with little empirical experience behind it, at that), and why no one noticed in WTC2 that it was only half as thick as it was supposed to be? NIST says a lot of fireproofing was knocked loose, and it doesn't take much imagination to how that would be pretty unavoidable as the planes disintegrated inside the buildings. What part of the design took that into account?

In fact, can you explain to me in general terms how an engineer in the 60s would have gone about designing these structures to take into account "a scenario equivalent to 9-11?"

used in REALITY, you wouldn't be asking for proof.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, the argument is:

"It is --impossible-- that the buildings fell because of impact and fire. Therefore, the Secret Shadow Government --must-- have planted explosives."

"Impossible" is a very hard thing to prove. If you wish to make this argument, it is YOU who must supply proof.

QED.

I have tried to find ways to accept the official story, but I just can't do it. It really has little to do with what has come out since, the day the towers fell I felt that they came down with help from something other than the planes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is a pretty lame response. You must have used all of your "thinkin" on that one.

I was using a figure of speech, but ya got me really good there Mervin. :eyes:

> It really has little to do with what has come out since, the day the towers fell I felt that they came down with help from something other than the planes.

That sounds a bit like the only thing you've been interested in since then is having your initial suspicions confirmed.

But it doesn't matter.

I am interested in all views and have made up my own mind as time goes on. Some things I thought on the day it happened weren't true at all and other things seem to be.

Unlike many people here, I have no agenda. I come in here to look at the links, but no one here has swayed my opinion one way or the other. Things such as "look at these people on a flight simulator on YouTube" isn't really impressive to me. I am interested in all information, but I don't try to provide any here because I know that some are here to try to discredit with misinformation and I feel no need to try to prove anything.

In fact, I can say with about 99.9% confidence that the plane that went down in PA was shot down. I have shared the information twice on here, but it was ignored. People still believe the official story and there is no way to change their mind. So why try? I know someone that was at a particular place that would know.

I believe that you are what you accuse me of, but that's fine. Everyone has the right to believe what they want.

ever shown that thermite has ever been used in demolition or is it just accepted as an article of faith? I don't see what the benefit would be over conventional explosives.

Aside from one spectacular video of thermite destroying a compact car, nothing was produced.

And, no there's no benefit over conventional explosives, or linear cutting charges.

Of course, there's also the question why the Secret Shadow Government would bother to hit the buildings with airplanes and THEN blow them up with tons of explosives. It's sort of like the Mafia running over the victim with a semi, and then shooting him in the head. Kinda doesn't make a lot of sense.

:shrug:

Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?

Sid

that's why it was done the way it was.

"shock and awe!"

to collapse one of the towers and kill 3,000 people (probably would have killed MUCH more) there would have been LESS psychological impact?

it's not nearly as dramatic as watching planes flown into those buildings over and over and over and over and over and over and...

You know what opinions are like... :hurts:

n/t

Why else park the truck bomb in the frikken parking gag below the WTC. Why not leave it out on the street in front, would have caused many more casualties.

the garage they parked in was under the plaza.

But they did park right on top of the physical plant, which put the buildings out of commission for a couple of months and gave the PA an excuse to do extensive renovations to the AC and mechanical systems in both Towers.

to convince my wife to let me reovate the den! :rofl:

just the right amounts of thermit or whatever to use, and placed the charges at the right locations so that they wouldn't fall until the planes impacted them? But building #7? :shrug:

no, there is no confirmed use of thermite in CD.

Just checkin.

legal withdrawal from a bank account.

But if someone used one to committ an illegal withdrawal from a bank account would you need to see confirmed use of a gun during a legal withdrawal to believe it?

Thermite is a better hypothisis than either the NIST pancake theory or their latest.

That doesn't mean it's confirmed, just that it fits the known facts better. It's a better hypothisis because it at least attemps to explain the pools of molten metal found at the bottoms of the elevator shafts, not to mention the molten metal pouring out of the side of on of the towers pre-collapse.

NIST doesn't mention molten metal in their report, one of the many reasons I find it lacking.

and can reasonably be thought of as a viable method to make a bank withdrawl. However if you said that since guns have been used to rob banks and the safe was blown during the robbery therefore a gun was used to blow up the safe I'd call BS. The only reason I can see why the thermite is needed is for some to account for what they see as excess heat in the pile. Otherwise conventional explosives would fit their theory. I and others have given reasonable and scientific reasons why the heat in the pile was not excessive or unusual. No one has yet to demonstrate that thermite is a viable method of CD.

A nuclear physicist says that he found the byproducts of thermit. This probably could include molten pools of metal. He says he found evidence of evaporated steel! This requires about 5000 degrees F! Is he wrong? Maybe but no one here on this board has the credibility he has IMO! And I've heard no other chemists or anyone with real expertise say otherwise unless they were somehow connected with the current administration.

but they are not backed by any of his peers. So it's really not as simple as you would have us believe. There are many other sources for the sulfer compounds he claims are evidence of thermite as there are many sources for the heat in the pile. Nobody has yet to even prove that there were vast quantities of molten steel. I lean towards much of what people saw as aluminum. It doesn't make much sense given the large amounts of aluminum present in the building that no one claims to have seen large pools of molten aluminum.

my reply to you questioning why thermit was considered to be one of the compounds used in the demolition. Perhaps I miss-understood you.

You say none of his claims are backed by any of his peers. But who is showing any inacuracies in his science. While it's true that many other substances maybe can account. No one has disputed that steel was evaporated yet nor have they given any plausible method to accomplish temperatures of 5000 degrees F. needed to evaporate steel. I know hydrocarbon fuels won't do it! What would? :shrug:

I thought that an explanation given for the liquid metal is that molten iron is a byproduct of thermite reactions.

melting point of steel, I'm absolutley positive that it could be used to demolish a steel building.
Does that make sense?

As to you and others having provided reasonable or scientific reasons why heat in the pile, heat in the structure, or heat in the pyroclastic flow or rising smoke are not excessive or unreasonable, I haven't seen that. What is your argument? And don't tell me magic "ovens' that magically appeared in all three structures, or the rubble of the structures to coincidentally provide the perfect amount of fuel, the perfect amount of oxygen, and the perfect amount of insullation to account for the observable evidence.

No one uses thermite to demolish steel buildings. It is good for rendering weapons unsable and welding beams quickly. The key part to remember is that there is more to energy transfer than temperature. There is space and time considerations as well. Thermite ONLY works with gravity, so you could not cut vertical steel beams with it, only horizontal ones.

where's the evidence that you can't cut steel beams vertically? You're just assuming you can't. You're guessing!
:eyes:

You can't even get this right. It can only cut beams vertically. What it can't do is cut steel horizontally.

concrete floor, you could melt it right there. I'm postitive a person with a little thought and a lot of thermite could cause a building to collapse. If kerosine can do it, thermite could do it.

prior to the attack, when they didn't want anyone to notice.

Thermite would just melt through the metal, it doesn't blow up and make a lot of noise and/or other damage.

Not commonly used in CD because it's hard to control and who cares it you make a lot of noise. Conventional explosives are a easier and safer to handle and control.

or ever used. No one seems to be able to provide a documented case where it has been used. Also, if in fact the cuts were done prior to the attacks then the heat that would have been generated would have dissipated negating its effects in the pile. It would seem much simpler to just use a cutting torch if that's the plan. I still see no need for the thermite.

A cutting torch requires someone to sit around making noise and throwing a lot of light.

With thermite you could apply the mixture and walk away. Set it off with a detonator at a later time.

Thermite is use to weld steel track together. Basically they build a mold around the track, the thermite melts the ends of the two pieces and when it cools the pieces are welded together. Without the mold the metal would just pour out on the ground and harden there.

but if as you said the cuts were made earlier then how would the thermite account for the excess heat you say is unexplicably in the pile and wouldn't the thermite have caused a fire in the building when the cuts were made? And once again, any confirmed examples of CD using Thermite?

can be set off with detonators.

They could have been timed or triggered to go off after the crashes and right before the gas explosions.

the NIST folks admit that thermite can cut steel beams and columns.

Just show me where it has been used before. I believe you can dry a poodle in a microwave but I don't think it has been done.

From your link:

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

So,

What possible mechanism could be employed to attach many thousands of pounds of thermite to hundreds of structural components, especially the vertical columns, and hold them in position in direct contact with the hundreds of structural components for the length of time required?

And how could the necessary "many thousands of pounds of thermite" be sneaked into the towers and be attached to the necessary hundreds of structural components, all surreptitiously and with nobody noticing?

And how could the necessary "many thousands of pounds of thermite" on the necessary hundreds of structual components be wired for detonation without anyone noticing? It would take literally miles and miles of det cord.

And even if all of that was theoretically possible, why would anyone do this and then fly large airplanes into the towers, which could easily have hit some of the many thousands of pounds of thermite planted on hundreds of structural components and set them on fire instantaneously, thereby ruining the entire "plan"?

And if someone were to plan such an ill-conceived scenario, why would they "time" the collapses to occur 56 and 102 minutes later, and why would they wait several hours to take out WTC7?

Edited for clarity.

You seem to be strangely absent from the thread after being questioned about your posts. So I'll just repeat it here to make it simple for you to respond.

From your link:

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

So,

What possible mechanism could be employed to attach many thousands of pounds of thermite to hundreds of structural components, especially the vertical columns, and hold them in position in direct contact with the hundreds of structural components for the length of time required?

And how could the necessary "many thousands of pounds of thermite" be sneaked into the towers and be attached to the necessary hundreds of structural components, all surreptitiously and with nobody noticing?

And how could the necessary "many thousands of pounds of thermite" on the necessary hundreds of structual components be wired for detonation without anyone noticing? It would take literally miles and miles of det cord.

And even if all of that was theoretically possible, why would anyone do this and then fly large airplanes into the towers, which could easily have hit some of the many thousands of pounds of thermite planted on hundreds of structural components and set them on fire instantaneously, thereby ruining the entire "plan"?

And if someone were to plan such an ill-conceived scenario, why would they "time" the collapses to occur 56 and 102 minutes later, and why would they wait several hours to take out WTC7?

because a certain poster continues to insist that thermite can't cut steel beams, despite the fact that even the gods at NIST think it can.

As for the rest, you want me to defend NIST's red herrings? Alright I'll give it a shot.


What possible mechanism could be employed to attach many thousands of pounds of thermite to hundreds of structural components, especially the vertical columns, and hold them in position in direct contact with the hundreds of structural components for the length of time required?

I suppose they could make a 'mold' around the section of beam they want to cut, sort of like they do when they use thermite to weld railroad ties.


And how could the necessary "many thousands of pounds of thermite" be sneaked into the towers and be attached to the necessary hundreds of structural components, all surreptitiously and with nobody noticing?

Oh that's the easy part. First of all, they didn't need 1000's of pounds of thermite or anything else to do the job. The NIST red herring is that this treatment needed to be applied to 100's of pieces of steel. On the top section of each tower they just need to cut two of the four corners of the first floor they wanted to drop.

How could they do this surreptitiously? The WTC was a huge complex. Many floors, especially has you get closer to the top were never even finished and never had occupants. The mechanical floors didn't have occupants either. Especially if 9-11 was an inside job, it would have been very easy to drive a truck into one of the freight elevators and bring your materials and equipment right to where you wanted to work and who the heck would ever notice?

why would anyone do this and then fly large airplanes into the towers, which could easily have hit some of the many thousands of pounds of thermite planted on hundreds of structural components and set them on fire instantaneously, thereby ruining the entire "plan"?

Again the 1000's of pounds red herring. However, if my theory is correct and they only needed to take out two corners in the top section, then they would know that the planes aiming at the center of the buildings wouldn't have been a problem.


Why would they "time" the collapses to occur 56 and 102 minutes later.

To minimize loss of life.

This one at Mon Jan-08-07 05:45 AM, where you claim, "On the top section of each tower they just need to cut two of the four corners of the first floor they wanted to drop"...


Or this one at Mon Jan-08-07 07:34 AM, where you claim, "The entire contents of the floors above the impact zone were pulverized before the building even started to collapse"?

I'd be interested in seeing you reconcile these two posts, that you made within two hours. What mechanism do you propose for the pulverization of the entire contents of the floors above the impact zone, if you only think thermite was used to cut two of the four corners on the first floor they wanted to drop?

You do understand that these positions are mutually exclusive of each other?

Brush up on your grammar.

I could say "While a grand piano would fit in my living room, you'd have to somehow get it through my front door."

You would then run with my saying the piano would fit in the room - ignoring the plain fact that you can't fit one through my front door.

The sentence on which you are hanging your hat goes on to say:

"many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components"

The "somehow" there is an important flag.

As discussed extensively in the previous thread, getting thermite to stay where you want it while trying to get it to go horizontally, is a trick. Do you think the Swedish army wasn't trying:

(hint: you can't put something on "top" of a landmine you are trying to eliminate)

http://www.itep.ws/pdf/swedishtest_report.pdf
The charges are not suitable for use against shells with steel bodies. No trial against a shell with a steel body led to a positive result.

You need to get over to Sweden to help those clueless bastards out.

I haven't yet found any documented use of thermit to demolish a building. Thermit is also used to make thermite grenades which do explode however. Here's some related links.

snip/

The Thermite Grenade is an incendiary type grenade emitting intense heat and flame. It contains a filler that burns for approximately 40 seconds at a temperature of 4,000 degrees (F). A portion of the filler turns into molten iron that produces intense heat, igniting or fusing whatever it touches. The Special Forces class use this grenade to complete "data destruction" type objectives such as ignited combustible materials, destroying weapons, records or equipment, or burning holes in metal doors.
from here.

and...video.

A thermite grenade is a canister filled with thermite and having an exhaust hole in the bottom. It is primarily a sabotage weapon.

Notice in the video two things:

1. He puts the canister on TOP of the object to be sabotaged.

2. It doesn't "explode" as you assert - it spews hot crap downward.

Check out http://www.uspto.gov for a discussion of the practical problems of getting thermite to do what you want...

United States Patent 5,698,812
Song December 16, 1997
Thermite destructive device

Abstract

A destructive device containing a thermite-type composition having a core burning configuration. The device comprises a housing having a top, a bottom, and a thermally insulated liner to maximize the thermal effectiveness of an ignition. The bottom has a circumferential skirt and defines one orifice therein for directing the expulsion of the thermite-type-composition upon ignition, the top has vents which together with the bottom orifice and skirt balance the escape of gas and prevent the device from moving during ignition.

Inventors: Song; Eugene (Ellicott City, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)


The most basic thermite grenade design is that of the AN-M14 TH3. It contains 1.5 pounds of thermate-TH3 which releases approximately 795 kilocalories per gram of uncontrolled energy through the thin walls of its sheet metal body. This energy, however, being undirected, is highly inefficient and insufficient to produce reasonable penetration levels.

A device with greater penetration capabilities is the "Thermite Penetrator Device" of U.S. Pat. No. 4,216,721 herein incorporated by reference, which was designed to direct the flow of energy through an opening at the bottom of the containing vessel. However, it is still inefficient in that a great amount of its energy is being lost through its open top end. The open top not only reduces the energy available for penetration, but adds to the device's visible signature.

A 1968 study performed for Frankford Arsenal resulted in a prototype design which incorporated a vented plug at the back end of the thermite device. The plug greatly reduced the amount of energy being lost and created pressure increases within the device. The study credited the increased penetration to a large void air space above the thermite charge which moderates the pressure buildup within the device which in turn produces an optimum flow of the molten iron. Such a device is described in the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) report by AD-393476 entitled "Thermite Destructive Device" by Stanley Rodney, September, 1968.

While the Frankford Arsenal design has merit, and a 1.5 pound charge of thermite could penetrate 1 inch thick steel plate, it is still insufficient with respect to thermite mass efficiency, to produce reasonable penetration levels. These devices also require the large void air space within the device cavity which makes the device too large (3" diameter.times.12" height), approximately four (4) times larger in size over the current system, AN-M14. Furthermore, the device requires means for locking the device onto a target.

That was in 1997. Several years later... same guy:

United States Patent 6,766,744
Song , et al. July 27, 2004
Incendiary device

Abstract

The various embodiments provide an incendiary device utilizing a multiple hollow core-burner technique that facilitates producing large diameter cuts through steel targets. To facilitate this result, the various embodiments incorporate a multiple-core burning design with multiple orifices at the base for directing multiple jets of molten reaction product at the target. The various embodiments further incorporate an optional holding device as a means for locking the device onto a target. Devices in accordance with the invention having a base diameter of 2.312" have been shown to be capable of producing an approximately 2" diameter hole through 1/4 inch thick steel plate using a 275 g thermite charge within a container three-quarters the size of a standard AN-M14 Thermite Grenade package.

Inventors: Song; Eugene (Ellicott City, MD), Tracy; Gene V. (Jarrettsville, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)


Current DOD Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) training school identifies the use of the standard AN-M14 incendiary grenade to render disposal of certain explosive ordinances. Unfortunately, the current EOD procedure requires several grenades, as many as 10 grenades, to achieve the desired result and the effect of the grenades in certain applications offers inconsistent effectiveness. Its configuration does not allow sufficient penetration.

A device with greater penetration capabilities is the "Thermite Destructive Device," U.S. Pat. No. 5,698,812 issued Dec. 16, 1997 to Eugene Song. This device was designed to create a forceful jet of molten iron through an opening at the bottom of the containing vessel. One grenade containing approximately 350 g of thermate-TH3 charge is capable of burning through a sheet of 1-inch thick steel plate in about 8 second reaction time. The device utilizes a central core-burning configuration to direct the molten products through an orifice at the bottom of the device.

While this design has merit from a penetration standpoint, and a 350 g charge of thermite could penetrate 1-inch thick steel plate, it is still inadequate to produce reasonable hole size levels. It is only capable of burning a 7/8" diameter hole, which is not sufficient enough for the safe disposal of an unexploded munition. A larger sized hole is needed to prevent a buildup of the internal pressure, and to achieve the successful burnout of the filler explosive. Earlier work has indicated that burning a 3" diameter hole through the outer casing will allow the explosive contained in the bomb to burn without transitioning to a detonation.


Now, you want to bring down a building. There are perfectly good linear shaped charges that will slice right across columns with accuracy and controllable timing.

Instead, you decide that you want to use something which is best known for making holes vertically by spewing hot crap downwards, with some new and untested rig of yours that is going to have to survive the impact of an airplane in its general vicinity and the resulting fireball and uncontrolled fire, and then work the way you want it to. Man... you better be right. Don't you find it amazing that this hitherto unknown rig of yours worked exactly the way it was intended, the first time it was ever used?

It won't end the deluge of bright ideas though. :eyes:

would ignite any inflamable material in proximity. Not used in CD because it only works vertically so would usless in cutting load bearing beams.

can't wait for your next poll. These are gold. Really.

Now, it's your turn: Prove NIST is wrong.

The matter is established beyond all reasonable doubt. If you wish to dispute considered expert opinion, it is YOUR job to "prove it".

because that is the problem.

The government says it's Saturday (i.e., 19 Arab hijackers/planes/jet fuel took down the towers). How do I know that it is? The burden of proof is on them. They can produce for me a calendar, or the phase of the moon, or my computer's clock, or any other of a number of pieces of evidence that would convince me they are right. But what do I do, if there exists no proof that it is indeed Saturday--if they just insist it is because they said so? Take their word for it? And what if I then say, you have no absolute proof, so I do not believe it is Saturday. And they respond, "prove that it is not"' the burden of proof is on you. Are they allowed to avoid satisfactorily proving to me that it is Saturday, while I am not allowed to avoid accepting their word for it, and without proving that they are wrong?

These are events in which many thousands of people participated--as victims, witness, or investigators. People from all over the world and from hundreds of nations and agencies.

What you are saying is just silliness.

Grow up.

Why are you so hostile? I mean, why insult me? I'm a nice person, really. You would probably like me if we met.

And, I am aware of the degree of difference and importance; that is exactly why it is so vital to continue to look at this and question everything that doesn't make perfect sense--and that includes the alternative theories as well.

Mervin insults everyone who doesn't see the world from his POV.

If he had solid facts to back up his version of events, he wouldn't need to resort to such childishness.

I didn't think it was just me, but I would like to understand why it is so intolerable for so many people to at least consider other explanations. This is the same problem that existed getting people to see the problems with e-voting machines, although now finally we have broken through on that (although the task still remains how to fix it). We just have so little time; it would help if other people would open their minds a little more and at least consider the other possibilities.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please respond to #58 and #154 above?

Since you're back, can you please respond to posts #58 and #154 above?