German Engineers reject official 9/11 story

Some German Engineers are constructing a site where they explain why the official version of 9/11 events we all heard, cannot possibly right. Their English language version isn't entirely translated yet. There seem to be a few little errors in translating from German in to clear coherent English. But they make some strong points, and bring up some new issues that I hadn't heard before. They give a much more comprehensive account of what happened to all the WTC buildings than I've ever heard before. They they think that WTC buildings were subjected to controlled demolition by many explosives, like the Seattle Kingdome, which likewise pulverized the concrete to dust -- using 2,500 kilograms of explosives!

Lots of very intelligent people are going to be working on finding the hidden truth of 9/11 for a very long time. Peoples faith in the "mainstream" U.S. corporate press will be undermined forever -- that's what happens when a few corporations own the media, you get the official lies repeated over and over, instead of independent observations of truth, linked by real attempts to connect the dots. The internet is now the only widespread forum for finding the truth, as these German engineers note.

My VW Bug lasted for a very long time, so I do tend to trust German Engineers. And they don't face the overwelming financial bias of American Scientists and Engineers studying this, who can get lots of research grant money IF AND ONLY IF THEY SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL VERSION. The Bush Regime has even corrupted science!

This is the German website: http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/toce.htm

I guess it will help the 9/11 history that the US kids that go overseas to study will learn.

But the GOP right wing's US Media control extends to text book publishers - and I do not expect to see a German engineer interviewed on Meet the Press anytime soon.

A photo of Bush killing Christ would not be accepted by the US media - even with video and 100 witnesses.

These folks have a storyline to sell - and at the moment it is Arnold as Gov of CA.

I don't think the site was done by engineers, it doesn't contain real scientific data. And lots of silly statements aswell. Actually I saw parts of the pictures and text on a site of a paranoid right wing freak - who also believe that there are 2 million Nazis still living in some hidden subterrain base on the north pole. :)

For example the plane "slipping" into the building, no one ever did a crash test with such a plane at that speed into such kind of structure. The plane was so fast it simply managed to drill into the building before it finally exploded. And then he looks at the MPEG artefacts and claims the plane is looking weird - too funny.

And that "UFO" is total crap too - "analysed with fourier transformation". That's total crap to make the statement appear more scientific. It could be very well a media helicopter, that's all.


There are far more important questions, such as why the air defense took so long to respond. Or how Bush could see the first impact on TV when the video with that was released much later the day? When 6 of the hijacker were using fake identities (and those real persons still live today) - what was the identity of the 6 hijackers then?

"There are far more important questions"

What could possibly be more important than knowing what really happened?

Some of that "photographic evidence" that you think is bogus, they think is bogus too. That's their point, some of the pictures purporting to show a plane going into a building have been misleadingly altered, and can't accurately portray the event. Note that they say "UFO" in quotes describing photos whose authenticity they doubt. But there is something very incomplete in what they are trying to communicate in that part of the site about the questionable photos...they should have thought through what they were trying to say there better before posting a few preliminary observations and calculations. What probably happened, is that these Engineers heard about how often the Bush Administration had fabricated all kinds of bogus photo, video, and audio "evidence" and got it in the media, so they wanted to take a crack at some planted evidence debunking themselves...but they haven't figured out how to do that very well yet.

Obviously, parts of a site questioning cerain photos could be misleading used out of context on a very dubious site, but to associate them with that is an unfair misunderstanding.

I think there is a whole lot of good scientific information and points about the destruction of buildings in the World Trade Center complex, and their points and conclusions resemble those of Plaguepuppy and others who are trying to figure out the effects of all the explosions which occured in the World Trade Center, as well the collapses, which are like nothing that ever happend to a steel building before, except in controlled demolitions! I hadn't heard such discusion of other explosive events in the WTC complex, though I remember hearing about some of that very briefly right when it happened....but then nothing was ever made of it. Like all the eyewitness reports of explosions, there was never any further follow up.

You are wrong, WRONG, W-R-O-N-G.

Of course there was lots of follow up on the internet by people like me, but this all vanished from the U.S. media for a long time, and the FBI NEVER DID ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHO PUT THE BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS. Neither did the New York City Police Department do a criminal investigation of 9/11 -- because Attorney General Ashcroft took them off the case immediately! They had no choice.

one reason that the FBI did no criminal investigation to determine who put bombs in the building is because there were no bombs.

Of course some evidence may be useful if you want someone to believe there were bombs. I have been following these threads for quite a while and no one has yet to provide any, I mean any evidence, that bombs were used in the buildings. I suspect you will be no different.

Also you are the first one I've heard claim that Ashcroft immediately closed the case (assuming there is a case). Just where did you get that nugget of info?

Did any of the fantacists ever attempt to explain when and how the alleged demolition charges would have been installed?

Or come to that, by who?

How many firms on the this Earth would have anything like the sort of expertese to be required?

There are a lot a number of agencies or corporations who could have done it, though it's very doubtful that "Al Qaeda" acting alone could have done it. How would they have gotten that kind of access to the buildings? But ever since 9/12 or so, lots of intelligent people have said, there is no way that Al Qaeda could have done 9/11 alone. And to some extent, this had to be an inside job.

In trying to determine who really put the bombs in the building, I think we've gone past what internet-centered research can do. The internet was originally developed by universities as a research tool, but it can't do everything. It can't do the whole criminal investigation of the WTC disaster that the FBI or the NYPD should have done. A lot of crucial information just doesn't seem to be "out there" in cyberspace yet. Some of the truth is out there, but not all of it.

People have been trying to use the internet to get a popular movement going to pressure the authorities to do the needed investigation. They've had some success, but as long as the Bush Regime is in power, I doubt that the needed investigation can be done. Ashcroft has the authority to stop any FBI or police investigation he or the other Bushies don't want done. That's why it's so uncool to have a fascist like him in such a powerful position!

I think we've gone past what internet-centered research can do.

Agreed.

:toast:

Sensible limits were long since exceeded, but that is hardly the point here.

If a theory is to be proposed to be taken seriously then it has to be a complete theory. A crimial investigation needs to know at least what it ought to be looking for. As to the planting of explosive charges I have not yet seen as a hypothesis to make any sense of, let alone any evidence to substantiate the notion.

As usual it is all about half cocked myopics getting their rocks off over sensationalist pseudo-crucial fantasies with objective reason brushed flippantly aside or twisted about when ever it should happen to spoil the thrill of it.

:hurts:

Naturally nobody can prove that there were bombs in the building if you are only reading what you can reach via internet. (And nobody can prove that there were no bombs only via internet sources).
BUT one can very well discuss indications. And there are indeed some indications of bombs.
As this kind of destruction of skyscrapers (complete destruction only by fire; the structural damage done by the planes was not the reason for them to collapse; I believe this was written in the FEMA report) never happened before, one could indeed expect a thorough investigation of ALL possible causes. But that did not happen. And it was hardly possible, as all remnants were brought away quickly.

FYI: Interviews and construction of an audio time line are still underway far from completed on your 'eyewitness reports of explosions' so like Yogi said, "It ain't over 'till it's over."

Your insipid broad brush unsupportable comments are really serving no purpose. Take a deep breath stop patting yourself on the back and keep on clicking that mouse - some REAL facts are already out there.

Not everyone was/is without conscience. Some do their jobs. Why are you rushing to judgement? Are the facts all in?

Indeed, not everyone was/is without conscience, and many of 'em are complaining about how the Bush Administration is trying to stop them from doing their jobs! That includes the official "independent" investigation going on now, they complain about how the Ashrofts (In)Justice Department and Rumsfelds Department of Defence never get around to turning over the subpoena'd documents, and the Bush Administration wants to restrict their access to everything under the sun which has been "Classified". The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has now taken over charge of the Official government-financed study of why the WTC collapsed, is also complaining that they can't get access to a lot of the basic information they need to figure out what really happened. By the way, they no longer support the official truss theory you all heard. They did enough scientific investigation to blow that convenient propaganda out of the water.

By the time the "audio time line" comes out, it will be awefully late to start a criminal investigation of who caused all those explosions in the WTC complex. All this foot dragging is just absurd. There's a huge cover-up from the top, and everybody who really trys to figure whats going on runs in to it.

Need a clue to get started on the right path huh DD? Shame you slept through history class. History shows that you follow the money. Take some time and just follow the money. Remember Watergate? Just follow the money. Look where the money went for the 9/11 NY investigation. Look where it's still going. Go ahead, check those institutions. Check their work. It's published it's free and just a click away. Make sure you very carefully check their affiliations. Yeah, that's right they don't answer to anyone. Yeah, they march to a different drummer. Yeah, anything but official. Just follow the money.

Why are you so willing to believe that this present administration or any other adinistration for that matter has the ability to call all the shots, to keep everyone under their thumb or that everyone is willing to be a puppet?

Go ahead, try clicking that mouse of yours on something besides that BS you're addicted to.

Just follow the money.

I'm still waiting ..... yawn .... your question, anyone's question should have been "What audio time line?" If you were really on a search for the truth you'd ask that question.

About those explosions - audio witnessed and on tape, just to help you out a little: WTC used more electricity, water, and steam each day than hundreds of small towns all put together. Transformers, water hammers, steam pressure relief valves = BOOM BOOM BOOM.

Have you always had your homework done by others?

Why don't you check you're little electrical theory of explosions against the math about the energy involved in the destruction of the WTC and the all the analysis of the explosions before and during the collapses at the various scientific sites I've already put up links to several times. Maybe PlaguePuppy could tell us more quickly, does this really add up?

I'm open to a variety of theoretical ideas, but you seem to just come up with whatever theory makes you feel good because it doesn't raise any disturbing issues about what really happened and who all is really responsible. There is no way to make any progress in understanding when people will only really consider ideas which fit their pre-set prejudices.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I have been for about twenty years, I have been responsible for performing failure analysis on various types of incidents. I have worked failures of high temp alloys, refractories, and a host of other disciplines.

I tell you this because I have reviewed most of the so called math about the energy involved in the destruction of the WTC and the all the analysis of the explosions before and during the collapses at the various scientific sites that make claims that something is amiss and it is all.....well....lacking in quality, accuracy and substance.

To be very kind.

Dave, I strongly urge you to look into the protocols used for the investigation of structural collapse - and then I suggest you check some collapse reports (another clue to help jump start you; Kemper Arena, KC Hyatt-Regency) and then, hopefully, you'll actually understand the real forces generating a collapse and generated by a collapse, and maybe even see the error in your " ... math about the energy involved in the destruction .... " statement. Well, at least you'll see the difference between a real site and your 'scientific' sites.

What "pre-set prejudices" are you talking about? No stone has been left unturned. No one has stopped looking into - very thoroughly; no painstakingly by the way - your explosion and bomb etc theory. Do you know what kind of man hours and money has been expended so far on those explosions? No one's been sent home yet.

The invesigation is far from over even though YOU say it is. If it were over a whole lot of people would be home and know what their kids looked like.

one consistent theory and spell out how it fits all the evidence step by step. Some of it is very interesting, but I do not have the background to evaluate it.

I was initially intrigued by the "Test Your Perceptions and Find the Boeing" site on the Pentagon crash. Much later I saw an explanation of how the evidence might fit an actual plane crash. So maybe it really was a Boeing that hit the Pentagon.

Much of the material on the WTC seems to be making the point that the damage to the two towers could not have been caused by a jetliner. But everybody SAW the planes hit. That should be beyond a doubt.

What I want to know is whether the damage could have accounted for the straight-down collapse of each tower. And, as much as the site gives tantalizing hints, it really doesn't provide a thorough alternate explanation.

I would be open to believing in additional explosions that help brought down the towers. I have heard anecdotal evidence and engineering explanations that are vigorously disputed. More is needed.

There's a better and more complete argument for explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 at http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html What I like about this new German site, is the way they are trying to give a more complete account of what really happened to the whole WTC complex. They obviously haven't finished that job yet. But they certainly have added to all the evidence that this is not something Al Qaeda could have done by themselves! Maybe the Carlyle Group could have done it...they have the weapons, the connections, and some Bin Ladins along with some Bushs in the corporation...and their making a lot more money since 9/11. Really!

These German Engineers are opening a new can of worms by noting that the damage to the twin towers doesn't seem to match what the alleged passenger planes could have caused very well. Now, obviously some aircraft did hit Twin Towers. But that may not have been all that was going on, even right when they hit. Indeed, we have some other eyewitness evidence that completely seperate explosions occured right around the same time as the planes hit the buildings. We don't know what explosives might have been in the planes. If the planes were independently detonated right as they hit the buildings, it would help account for the fact that we don't see quite the kind of hole that the whole intact plane would have made going into the wall. Only some smaller fragements from the explosion went all the way through the wall. Another seperate detonation could explain the fireball at the other side...and in the North Tower, there was a flashy explosion that was not in the path of the plane at all. In the video made by those French guys doing a feature on the New York Fire Department, you can see that an explosion really goes off on the wall to the side of of where the plane hit, at a right angle away from the planes path. Something like this might help explain the anomalys in the Pentagon damage as well.

There very well may have been some new wepons being tested on 9/11, beyond any explosives that we have ever seen used before. Both in eye-witness accounts and even some parts of the "collapse" videos there seems to be evidence of complete DISINTIGRATION of large objects never seen before...exept maybe by nuclear weapons. But these aren't like any nuclear weapons we've seen before, either. Disintigration beam technology does exist, but last I heard it was just a very inefficient way to disintigrate small household objects. It might cost a million dollars to disintigrate a plate, but of course the Pentagon thought it was worth doing.(No wonder there won't be any Social Security money left when I'm 64). There were probably some new hi-tech weapons being tested on 9/11.

that the two towers were built quite differently than any other structure we've seen demolished before. It would make sense to me that they had been designed to fall straight down, considering the crowded area that they were in. You can see as they fell that the outer columns held together just long enough for the load to pass and then, their connecting structures severed, they peeled away.
Consider how tricky it would have been to set charges and hope someone flying into the buildings hit them just so, so that no other charges went off without some plausible explanation. Did someone tell the pilots that they had to hit at the 94th floor and then expect them to count floors while they were flying into the buildings?
I agree with someone else here; that there are so many unanswered questions about even the official version; the lack of air defense, the hints to officials not to fly, the oil connections in the "stans", any of which could be damning to this misadministration, that it may not be necessary to chase alternate demolition theories. Of course, if those here wish to do so, could they please connect the dots to Carlyle or Cheney or others, as fast as possible.

edit: ugh! spelling

and bushwaco would jest giggle and jiggle....the real proof about 911 (my opinion) is the streamlined media coverage of the event, from getgo....i hear the actual archival broadcasts made by the mediawhores that day are no longer available in undoctored versions, and every one of the bushsluts have been going over the records incessantly removing anything suspicious ...recently Yahoo for example took a headline off that basically said bushinc lied about iraq (someone managed to save the item) replacing it with something that was less incriminating, rewording the washington post leader.....this goes on ALL THE TIME, and you can be certain the media bosses met prior to 911 to discuss how to manage the coverage of the disaster, how to SLANT IT for bushwaco
the truth is out there.....enough to hang 10 thousand pigs...

That's a good cool point, man, but the calculations will have to part of how we finally show how bogus these media spectacles have become. Everyone has there own fields of intelligence to contribute.

One thing that I've noticed is that all investigations of 9/11, whether official or anti-official, seem to come to dead end if they start with the bogus official account of WHAT PHYSICALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11. A number of high FBI people admitted they had reached a dead end as eartly as Spring 2002. Sites which were oriented to showing Government complicity, such From the Wilderness, also seemed to hit a dead end, around the same point in time. Until we get the basic WHAT REALLY HAPPENED figured out better, we won't get very good answers for WHY and WHOS RESPONSIBLE. Time has already showed that.

One frequent reason to come to a dead end would be to have gone in the wrong direction to begin with.

Or yet more to the point, one frequent reason to come to a dead end would be to have been looking for something not there to be found to begin with.

:nuke:

The "videos were edited" is too rich to pass up. The plane that hits the south tower was edited in later????? Pleeeeeease. Only thousands of people saw it impact the building. I personally know about 30 people that watched it fly over their place of work in NJ just prior to hitting the tower

Maybe that makes the dribble look more credible than "U.S. internet cranks". :-)

I admit, the part where they try to critique a few videos is the weakest part of this. But they have a point about the building damage not looking at all like what has been previously seen on occasions where planes just ran into buildings. These engineers do not have a good explanation of the begining of the damaging events yet, but they show a real problem with the official version. I think that what ever aircraft hit the towers, may have been independently detonated just as it hit. That would explain a number of things about the explosion and damage. Of course some aircraft collided with the WTC 1 and 2, but the point is that from begining to end THERE WAS A LOT MORE THAN THAT GOING ON. The aircraft impacts certainly didn't cause everything that followed.

Comments like this

The aircraft impacts certainly didn't cause everything that followed.

I have asked every conspiracy advocate why this is true and not once has anyone provided any evidence that that something other than the planes impact and the resulting fires were the cause.

ALL the so called evidence that supposedly proves the WTC's were demolished is nothing more than speculation based on wannabe engineers that have fertile imaginations and/or sloppy analysis or snips of audio or video that is either taken out of context or outright misconstrued.

I have asked every conspiracy advocate this question and not once has anyone provided any evidence that that something other than the planes impact and the resulting fires were the cause.

Sure there's evidence: the planes impact and the resulting fires couldn't be the cause because steel had melted there... err, or was it because steel had NOT melted there...? Nevermind... :crazy:

the death ray theory. I've been told be very reliable internet source that it puts steel in a fluid state that to the naked eye appears to be solid.

Really, I confirmed it on google and with Bush himself at the disinfo agent annual picnic.

The aircraft damage doesn't begin to account for what later happens to both towers, and no analysis of the fires has shown that they could have created the collapses as witnessed. In both towers there is sudden complete failure of the entire core, something that would require an enormous amount of heat to be delivered to all 47 core columns at the same time, enough to bring them t red heat.

NIST is supposed to be working on a fire analysis, but it is still only in the early stages. As far as the mechanism of the collapse, if you read their mission statement they make it clear that they don't consider any of the theories mentioned in the FEMA report as definitive or proven, and the truss theory of computer animation and NOVA fame has been essentially discarded.

And once more, if there is really "nothing to see here" why is the investigation still being met with an iron curtain of stonewalling?

In both towers there is sudden complete failure of the entire core?

Really?

:think:

Not according to this:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/The_Strange_Collapse_of_the_Spire.htm

:silly:
:crazy:

:nopity::hurts:

:argh:

"Based on the photographic evidence there can be no question that explosives, and possibly other weapons systems based on "black technologies" were used in the WTC demolitions. Otherwise one can only suppose that the laws of physics underwent a profound but temporary change on September 11, 2001, as indeed the political and moral climate of our country underwent a dark and fateful change. And it is precisely this change that was clearly the intent behind the vast high-tech magic show that was 9/11. In politics as in physics, things do not happen for no reason."

Keep up the good work.

Cheers.

Oh Really?

Where did the article explain how the supposed explosives or possibly other weapons systems got to be there?

Did I miss that bit?

:eyes:

In both towers there is sudden complete failure of the entire core, something that would require an enormous amount of heat to be delivered to all 47 core columns at the same time, enough to bring them t red heat.

None of that is accurate.

The failure of the core does not require all 47 column be heated to "red heat." The core failure only requires that 'X' number of columns fail due to heat or damage until the load that is shifted to the remaining unaffected columns exceeds their carrying capacity. What is the combination that caused the towers to collapse that day is presently unknown. Rest assured engineers are working on it. One thing you can take to the bank is that failure of the core does not require all the columns to be heated to 1500 deg f.

Also the comment about red heat is ridiculous. Steel heated to red is around 1500 deg f. There is no need whatsoever for the steel to be that hot in order to fail. It's failure point is a function of the stress and temperature it is under. Typical steels lose something like 50 percent of their strength at temps as low as 1000 deg f.

The notion of a sudden complete failure is a bit inaccurate. Did all the column fail at the impact site. Sure they did, Did they all fail at the same time. It very unlikely. There was most likely a domino type effect. As internal parts of the structure failed due to stress and heat in specific areas, it transfers additional load to the remaining columns that may be close to the failure point but not quite at it. Once these fail the rest of the column must take up the load until this progression leads to complete failure. The point is that some of the columns that were at ambient temp failed from just being overloaded. How long would this take? I would guess a second or so.

Sorry, but your frantic hand waving and vague conjectures don't change the reality of the collapses. In the WTC-1 collapse the antenna and roof begin to drop straight down at the very beginning of the collapse (watch the videos, the antenna and roof are the first things that start to move). What does this mean? That the core (remember that the antenna sits exactly over the core) has undergone sudden and complete, symmetrical failure at its most lightly loaded point, i.e. the top. And we know it was an almost perfectly symmetrical collapse because the antenna drops straight down.

This is not a "dominoe effect," it is the simultaneous complete failure of all 47 columns. And it is not just a weakening of the core columns - the fact that the roof drops straight down at very close to free-fall velocity means that all the columns have lost all their resistance, something that in the real world happens at temperatures close to the melting point. The fact that a small portion of the core (the "spire") remains standing only adds to the mystery of how the rest of the core disintegrates so completely, and does so without having any effect on this remnant that it was so tightly bound to. The uppermost portion of the spire consisted of a single box column, with all the cross braces connecting it to the other core columns neatly severed, not even so much as bent by the force that severed all those steel spandrel plates.

The south tower also shows a complete loss of core strength at the moment of collapse, though it is a more complex situation. The fundamental fact remains the same, that it drops straight down (after the initial tipping of the upper part)with no significant toppling. Any progressive collapse from redistribution of stresses would by definition not be symmetrical, and would become less so as it progressed.

Your last paragraph is so poorly reasoned as to be totally meaningless. Some columns totally fail, despite being tightly interconnected to all the other columns at each floor, from heating. So what does "total failure" mean in this case, if all the columns are part of an interconnected structure: do these columns melt and drip away? Cause if they do anything less there will be very little load shifting, and all those other columns at or near ambient temperature will never come close to failing. " I would guess a second or so." Sure, why not? Keep guessing!

The FEMA report and the other pseudo-studies (the Nova and Discovery Channel documentaries) don't go near the question of core failure for the very good reason that there is no plausible mechanism to account for it.

As usual. Very authoritative sounding as well. Very believable to the uninformed. Sorry PP, I'll not go down this road again debunking your fanciful notions of structural collapse mechanisms. It's way to boring at this point.

You are good though. Just enough truth to have it all sound soooo believable.

:eyes:

Same old routinely ignorant garbage about the Pentagon event

Re. Bill Morris photo: http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate44.htm

"the roof line is not broken yet" is wrong. Higher resultion versions of the same photo clearly show that the roof line was already broken.

Re. the Tom Horan photo
"the face is still standing" is wrong. The damaged section was already collapsed, as can be seen from the very same image simply by looking closely enough. The photo was taken around 10:30 a.m. not soon after the impact as is all too often supposed.



Re. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate45.htm
"The 45 feet high lamps of the helicpter landing place have not been touched" is a cruel deception. Five lamp poles had indeed been felled by the passing B757:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

Great job of beating up on imaginary straw men, Mr. Lar dude and his sidekick Sherbert. Happy as pigs in a pig pile beating up on nobody at all, kind of shows off their real strengths.

My advice to Dave and others who may make the mistake of taking these characters seriously:

1)Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.

2)Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

Great job of beating up on imaginary straw men, Mr. Lar dude and his sidekick Sherbert.

I don't know who Sherbert is but I want to know what straw men you think we have been beating up and why you think they are straw men?

to wire both of the WTC towers with explosives to bring them down that fateful day? And exactly what is supposed to have been the time frame for the wiring/explosives? Doesn't it take several weeks at best to properly wire up an empty building so it will implode properly? If the Seattle Kingdome took 2,500 kg of explosives, how much would the towers needed? How do you suppose all that was done with no one ever noticing anything a bit odd happening?

Just asking.

"For those who do not accept the Official Story on the collapse of the Twin Towers, this article is a minor smoking gun. It explains their biggest problem: if the Towers were brought down with explosives how could anyone get them in. Step in Marvin Bush whose company installed the security system..."

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html

Please remind us.

What previous experience would Marvin Bush or his security boys have had of demolishing shyscrapers?

Since the Bush & bin Laden families have a relationship going back 30 years, maybe Marvin or his security boys learned their craft from the highly experienced Caveman. The Caveman had lots of experience flying large commercial jet airliners into tall buildings, didn't he?

So you think that to effectively demolish a skyscraper one needs only to plant a few bombs here and there, with no particular expertise as to where and how exactly to achieve the same, is that supposed to be the story?

"Just asking". No problem, better than making DD and PP ridiculous and throwing insults without proper arguments.
What would be "bit odd happening" ?
Would it be difficult to disguise such preparations as normal maintenance work?
It should theoretically be possible to check if, some months before 9/11, "maintenance works" were going on in many parts of the WTC buildings.

It would also be theoretically possible to check to what extent maintenance workers had any previous experience of demolishing shyscrapers.

In the mean time, back in the real World, you have nothing more than a fantasy to play with. After nearly two years nobody has yet come up with any sort of substantiation to such a scenario, and that would hardly be for want of wishing to, would it?

Hi,

the site you found is one of many mirrors of the original site, which is here:

http://www.skdbavaria.de/911/

(last update in May 2003, but German only).

It is maintained by a small publishing company, SKD Bavaria, probably run by Arabs (judging from the contact address names and the fact that they offer some books on Islam).

The /911 part contains excerpts of a book by a German. He is advertised as a journalist and engineer, Dr. Christian Guthart.

Here is the book:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3926575875/qid%3D1060657349/028-0662229-0987766



I have only read short quotes - seems to be a pleasant read, written with irony and humor.

I am not so sure what to make of his observations, though. At least some of them seem to be misleading, like the part about the "amateur videos" showing the second plane "too low":



Text: "Even before the explosion, the image of the plane is located beneath the place where the explosion occurs. Thus the plane on this image could not have been the cause of the explosion."

It is clear, however, from other videos taken from a different angle that the explosion is seen first at exactly the same height where the right wing tip enters the building, very close to the windows at the eastern side, right where he marks the "explosion centre" with an orange dot. He seems to suggest that the explosion should have occured where the nose of the plane enters (marked with the white dot) but doesn't explain why.


Having said that, I realize that this author is just posing questions, pointing out that all the "evidence" available and presented to the public is not reliable, that even these videos are so bad in quality that they just as well could be fakes.

I remember very well, BTW, that the semi-professional debunkers here were very quick to point out that something must be wrong with these video stills - when Paul Thompson quoted a mainstream press report from Spain discussing a strange cylindrical object where the fuselage meets the right wing of the plane (also seen in the above picture).

Here are some interesting views of the second plane hitting WTC-2:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane.closeup.wmv
http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/missileout.wmv
http://thewebfairy.com/911/plane.in.missile.out.wmv
http://thewebfairy.com/911/

The explosion does appear to be at the correct level, bout shows some strange features. The earliest signs of the explosion appear near the middle of the east wall, and no debris is seen exiting the exit hole near the southeast corner that can be seen later. When the plane was first entering the building up to the point that the fireball is fully formed, by which point the plane debris should have been well past the corner, nothing solid can be seen exiting through the east wall.

The first clip, from German SAT-1 television, also shows a yellow flash lasting about two frames just at the point where the nose of the plane is about to hit the building. I have no explanation, but this is from broadcast TV and doesn't look manipulated.

There's lots of interesting possiblities to explore here. Some people think that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA)'s 3-D projection technologies could have been involved in creating some of the spectacular effects on 9/11. Check out
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ and the visual links on the sidebar.

Gore Vidal has made a strong HISTORICAL case for 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan being two phases of the same total operation:
http://burningbush.netfirms.com/Vidal.html So what kind of new weapons were tested on the hapless people of Afghanistan. Public health experts are especially concerned about this: http://www.umrc.net/downloads/destruction_effects.pdf

How does it feel by to be disintgrated by our latest disintigration beam technology? If I knew I wouldn't be here! But see how deep you can get into this: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm How SPECTACULAR. Vaporized victims tell no tales.

DD, when one considers the replies you got, one really has to doubt if this is the right place for doubting the official story line (some people will now attack me and claim that there is no official story. I will, however, not discuss this term here, as I think the broad meaning is clear).
Most of the many thousand people that post on DU seem not to be very interested in this topic.
Then there are five or so very active posters who continuously attack ideas that there might have been explosives in the WTC, that a Boeing might not have hit the Pentagon, etc.
Interestingly, these active people very often resort to personal attacks (what qualification does X have, he is insane, only to name the mildest forms). Examples:
OudeVanDagen: “You are wrong, WRONG, W-R-O-N-G. “ OK, very sophisticated argumentation. But thanks for your thoughts.
RH. “Did any of the fantacists ever attempt to explain when and how the alleged demolition charges would have been installed?” Hey, it must be possible to put forward an idea without providing a contradiction-free theory that explains everything. Not even Bush managed that!
RH “Integrity, please.” OK, but then don’t throw insults yourself. That does not stand for integrity.
An so on.
Nobody of the posters offered a P O S I T I V E argument, only tried to contradict the “conspiracy” idea. (I personally do not understand why someone who thinks the official story is correct bothers to continuously attack “conspiracy theorists”)

And the rest of DU is obviously not interested.

However, Dancing Dave, Plague Puppy, Linkman, cthrumatrix, keep up your work!

Dave's comment '... no further investigation' IS wrong - 100% wrong and his broad statement indicates; a) he doesn't know what he's talking about, b) he is only using stuff that supports his position, c)he is ignoring everything else, and d) all of the above. 'No further investigation' is untrue; he IS wrong.

in this case, e.g., the explanation what specific kind of investigation in the eye witnesses reports on explosions is going on.
Only saying "wrong" is such a broad claim that it hardly advances the discussion.

I think there are those, like myself, who come here, read, learn what we can, become interested in learning more, but do not post. DU2 used to have a field on the topics page that showed how many views a particular topic received. That would settle the curiousity over how many DU'ers lurk on this forum.

I agree that there are those die-hards who support the terrorist-conspiracy story to the point that one begins to wonder from where they find their enthusiasm, especially given that they do not post on any other forum at DU. However, they do play a "devil's advocate" role in preventing the going to extremes that is possible when advocating hypotheses that account for the destruction of 9.11. It does not seem reasonable to assume that jetliner were not used in the attacks, for example. If people put forward that explosives or more exotic means of demolition were used, something beyond merely making the supposion public would be helpful.

It is appropriate that the 9.11 forum and the IP forums are in the same subdirectory because both are very contentious and oftentimes frustrating "places."

In fact, though, they are very interesting and I believe I am one of thousands who can say that I have learned a lot from my silent participation.

"If people put forward that explosives or more exotic means of demolition were used, something beyond merely making the supposion public would be helpful"

Many well-informed people have put forward very plausible scenarios to explain what the government doesn't want you to know. You just have to do a little reading and THINKING.

If some people here put forward that the official story is accurate, something beyond merely making implausible, fantastical claims would be helpful, wouldn't it?

Piping up from Germany, here - though I should say, I'm not an "engineer." In fact, I'm not even German.

I take the question of how the collapses occurred very seriously. The sequences of the two tower events are enormously suspicious (time almost equivalent to free fall, jets of smoke exploding in neat rows as the collapse proceeds down the length of the building). And there is no way to get around the riddle of WTC 7 without admitting that the question of a demolition remains very much open.

Nevertheless, plenty of people, whether "engineers" or not, are prepared to believe (or at least to profess) most anything, no matter how ridiculous.

And this is my impression of the "German engineers'" site and the Guthart "findings" generally. They combine some good points with material so obviously wrong that you can only think

a) they're really stupid, though they hit some good points by scattershot method;

b) they're looking for new theories that they can quasi-trademark under their own signature, and market to particularly naive believers in Antarctic UFOs;

c) they're active disinfo agents, whether acting as individuals or on behalf of whatever organization, who consciously combine valid points with wrong ones so as to discredit the entire pursuit of 9/11 questions.

Here I think specifically of the idea, suggested in the fifth point raised by the "engineers," that perhaps no aircraft in the shape of a Boeing actually hit the WTC towers - but that an image of one was pixelled-in on the "edited" "official amateur video" after the fact of the explosions from "the crash" ...which were actually caused by internally placed explosives.

First of all, to even start thinking along these lines, you have to completely ignore the existence of New York City, population 8,000,000 - several hundred thousand of whom were watching as the second plane came in and hit WTC 2, hundreds of them with their cameras running! Oh, did I mention all the people who live on the Jersey side who were also watching?

As an occasional speaker at 9/11 skeptics' events in Germany, I keep running into (isolated) people who go for such ideas. They disturb me in that they tend to have similar profiles and personality tics as male, middle aged loners, quiet guys who show subtle but restrained evidence of right-wing views. I suspect they're pros, or coming out of a rightist ideological corner.

Or perhaps just stupid and stubborn - how do you airbrush from your consciousness the literally hundreds of people pointing their cameras at the event?

The first tower crash, a surprise that was seen only by a few random people and recorded only on one camera, provides more fertile ground for this nonsense. The out-of-focus flash of the plane on the French video is interpreted (sometimes after appropriate Photoshop work) as a missile, a UFO - or in the imagination of the "Webfairy" - a "whatzit." All you must do to believe this evident nonsense is to forget the concepts of "lens" and "pixel."

To round it out, incredibly cheap graphic tricks are used to "reinterpret" the profile of a Boeing in the facade of the first tower (with exactly the right wingspan) as actually being the profile of a missile, smaller plane, or "whatzit." In one case, I saw this picture with a line added to show that the wingspan was not as long as a Boeing's; to achieve this effect, the line simply did not go to the visible end-point of the hole made by the wings. So the line, indeed, was not long enough, though the actual hole in the picture was.

The picture above, from Guthart's book, is a similarly sad case. There is no reason to expect the explosion to be centered on the nose of the plane, nor should we expect only one explosion. In fact, we should expect at least as many explosions as there are engines and fuel tanks. There is no way to predict in advance how these explosions should spread out, given the minor detail that this is not a round bomb in an open space but an oblong plane crashing at an angle into several floors of a building! The point Guthart marks as the "real center" of the explosion isn't even IN the explosion. It's on the outside corner of the building! The actual explosion is INSIDE the building and we see it coming out from two sides of the buildings - very logically the side where it went in, and the side directly opposite from the entry point. All this is immediately obvious on looking at these pictures, and I'm sorry, they strike me as though Guthart has constructed a stupidity test. Anyone who examines these pictures and believes what he is saying qualifies as a good sucker for further fairy tales, more importantly as a potential buyer of his books.

Whatever the source, when I see anything this wrong, I usually do not bother reading the rest. Failings of logic and empiricism on this level are far beyond anything that we could attribute to honest error and suffice as instant discrediting. The rest of the Guthart book may even be reasonable - but I would still rather go find a different treatment, one that doesn't fly such an obvious red flag.

Again, I don't mean necessarily to distract from genuine and honestly presented evidence in support of demolition hypothesis, or the possibility that the Pentagon was struck by something other than a Boeing, or that the original aircraft were switched for drones, or that the aircraft were hijacked electronically (whether by a bolt-on or built-in systems, re-programming, or an outside device...)

I do, however, dismiss idiocy when it is evidently so. Its effects can be devastating to an otherwise valid case.

Imagine someone delivering a well-sourced and persuasive presentation on government foreknowledge of 9/11 for 3 hours. At the very end, he suddenly gets up on the table and announces he is channeling the ambassador of Andromeda, with the message that 9/11 was actually a Romulan inside job. What would be left of his previous presentation?

Those who really question the official story should remember that not everyone who appears to do so is really a friend, and not everyone who defends the official story is enemy.

Suspicious as I am of those who spend enormous time on this board stubbornly rehashing the same old arguments in favor of the official story, I am equally wary of those who keep coming here with insupportable and obviously refutable super-exotic theories, seemingly designed to make 9/11 skepticism look like the hobby of crazy people.

Do 9/11 skeptics really believe what they profess? And do they want to win their case? Then they need to more discriminating about material like Guthart's.

Your post was way to sensible to be allowed to live in this forum. ;-);-);-);-)


While you and I disagree at what point idiocy kicks in, I very much agree with your sediments.

...super-exotic theories. That really did make too much sense, but...

Again, I don't mean necessarily to distract from genuine and honestly presented evidence in support of demolition hypothesis, or the possibility that the Pentagon was struck by something other than a Boeing, or that the original aircraft were switched for drones, or that the aircraft were hijacked electronically (whether by a bolt-on or built-in systems, re-programming, or an outside device...)

I do, however, dismiss idiocy when it is evidently so. Its effects can be devastating to an otherwise valid case.

...has anyone ever presented a case in support of e.g. demolition hypothesis that didn't include as essential part some obviously refutable idiocy, or a profound logical disconnect ("impossible that the hijackers had skills to fly the planes well enough but quite plausible that Marvin Bush's security guards had skills to wire the buildings in total secrecy to explode exactly right")?

Great post Jack!

but it seems discussing it is generally discouraged.

but it seems discussing it is generally discouraged.

Yeah, DU is such a den of censorship and oppression, but don't worry: I'm pretty sure that you could go to freakrepugnant.con and discuss to your little heart's content how Hillary orchestrated the whole 9/11 to kidnap and kill Barbara Olson. :puke:

a Hillary Clinton theory? Or for that matter WHAT theories I entertain? are you a mind reader? And for the record I was not referring to DU as a culprit in discouraging anything, but just in general that some viable speculations have always been and are still discouraged if not outted altogether (notice I have not stated what speculation falls into this category so refrain please from reading my mind).

Are you trying to make trouble? It seems you have flown off on a warped out presumption here all of your own making. But thanks for sharing.

...in leaping wildly to conclusions about someone's agenda, amid all the constant yapping about how we "defend Bush's official story blah blah blah..."? :evilgrin:

Why were the steel beams allowed to be taken away as scrap and thus hampering a proper investigation? Why did FEMA conduct the investigation rather that the NYC Fire Department?

To me this implies interference in a criminal investigation and also destruction of evidence needed for a criminal investigation. Both are felonies I believe.

And in light of what has been discovered in the last 2 years (almost) as to answering some very basic questions, like how exactly could a single airplane bring down a huge structure like it did, begs the question; what are we not being told?

As a Du'er, to be sure, a short time DU'er, believe me when I say, I am very interested in the truth on how and who exactly is responsible. The 'official' explanation does not convince me, because on looking back, I detect the rotten smell of cover-ups and lies.

How convenient that the steel is gone. This goes far, far beyond simple incompetence.

I will digest this report.

As a side note, I find it troubling about all those off the wall speculations about ray guns, UFO's, ect. that try to explain what happened. All these speculations do is discredit legitamate questioning.

Bush doesn't help by classifying so much information, no doubt trying to protect his business buddies. Or is there something more sinister at work?

What is really troubling though is how over a lifetime I have gone from a youngster that was taught that people that worked for the US government are the good guys, and now I am so suspicious of anything the government does. Is it me, or have I seen to much in my life?

"As a side note, I find it troubling about all those off the wall speculations about ray guns, UFO's, ect. that try to explain what happened. All these speculations do is discredit legitamate questioning.
Is it me, or have I seen to much in my life?" (sic)

Who here at DU is pushing ANY kind of speculation about ray guns, etc.?

I think that far from having seen too much in your life, you haven't LEARNED enough in your life. (I'm assuming your sincerity)

Did you ever see the "Lone Gunmen" pilot series, which was written by the same people as "The X-Files"? It gets pretty deep into that phenomana of people getting more and more suspicious of a Government with a secretive "National Security" establishment spinning out of the kind of democratic control demanded by the Constitution. People want to have as much faith in the ideals of the U.S. Government as they did when Kennedy was alive, but there's lots of real reasons not to.

It's important to realize that there many different factions and agencies in the U.S. Government, and both good and evil people working here or their in the large, often rather disconnected structure. The Lone Gummen pilot series was very prophetic of 9/11, but it also made the point that what causes such problems is really certain little desperate and unscrupulous factions in the U.S. Government, not the whole thing. The writer Peter Dale Scott has had some enlightening things to say about that too. And make no mistake about it the neo-cons were getting pretty desperate before 9/11. Bush didn't have anywhere near the popularity and respect he would need to get the neo-con agenda through. It was 9/11 or bust!

Plague Puppy recently put up an Einstein quote about how a sense of wonder towards the unknown is needed to do valuable research. That probably helps explain why millions of open minded people are attracted to shows like the X-Files and sites like Rense.com. But in a way Rense.com is a bit psycologically and culturally naive. The deeper truth in the X-Files is not about aliens, but about ALIENATION. Jeff Rense isn't quite sophisticated enough about how SYMBOLS function. So that's where you get the good investigative journalism mixing in with alien stories, which at some point can be embarassing to the real journalists there!

I stand corrected.

Not all the steel was scrapped. Enough was recovered to make an analysis of the heat the core columns experienced. They did reach 600 degrees c, high enough to weaken the steel.

It is NIST's hypothesis that the impact of the aircraft disturbed the load balance on some of the core columns and with the heat from the fire (even a sooty fire will bring the roof above the fire to high enough temperatures) caused the floor support connection to the core to shear. There is photographic evidence showing floor 83 overhanging parts of 82 just prior to collapse.

NIST has the responsibility to investigate this disaster because of law inacted in late 2002, not FEMA like I said.

It is a plausable explanation that it is possible for an aircraft to cause a very large building to collapse.

I will take my tin hat off now. Those guys (NIST) are pretty good at what they do.

Is it true? Who can say? But they are the experts.

"It is a plausable explanation that it is possible for an aircraft to cause a very large building to collapse."

Plausible to official story promoters, but not in the history of the known physical universe.

n/t

Here's some more details on the physical argument that the official theory is impossible, because it violates the basic natural law of conservation of energy: http://www.justiceforwoody.org/re911/papers/volumev2.html

Jim Hoffman teaches the physics needed to grasp this key point very well.

Here's a photo he uses for some points of referrence:

When did he do that? I could spend the next hour trying to explain why nearly everything in his analysis is the equivalent of tripe, but, frankly why bother.

Let me point out just one glaring error?

Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, ......

Then from the article he links to to prove this

In morphologic analyses we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton). The particles were separated into size classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter.

Notice it says the largest mass concentrations are >53 micron. Nothing about a high estinmated average of 60.

The rest of it is even worse.

You quote the referred article:

>Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, ......<

Then you state:

>Then from the article he links to to prove this (...)<

I tried to find which article he links to prove this, but found what he actually says:

>Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al.,((linked)) characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.<

From my reading of this sentence it would appear that he does not at all insert the link "to prove" something but on the contrary disputes the validity of "statistics of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents" by referring to "diverse evidence" (not linked) ...

So where is the error, please explain? Are you saying he is wrong?

I am not an engineer nor a physicist, but the mere sentence structure seems to contradict your claim of a "glaring error".

The only other link in this article, BTW, refers to an article at http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm where someone for whatever reason also speaks of 60 micron powder.

to validate the rest of his nonsense. And is trying to dispute the validity of the dust sample by speaking about diverse evidence that does not exist. In short the huge pulverized concrete dust cloud is a figment of his imagination.

From http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html

...Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures.

Note that the samples were of the total settled dust and were representative of dust cloud. This would include any concrete that was there or NOT there.

We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle size, for inorganic and organic composition.

The analysis was not dependent of particle size so the concrete did not get mysteriously removed from the sample.

These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass).

I assume that any concrete found in the samples were lumped in with construction materials. Of course one can alway choose to believe that 90,000 tons of so called pulverized concrete just vanished into thin air and hence it did not get sampled.

In morphologic analysis we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton).

Again note that there is no mention of concrete. Just maybe it wasn't there in sufficient quantities to make the list.

The particles were separated into size classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter.

Of couple of important things to note here. Material under 2.5 µm in general have a terminal velocity close to zero, ie they tend to float about very easily. These particles made up less than 2.0 percent of the mass. The largest mass concentrations were over 53 µm. Particle size distributions are typically graphed logarithmically. This means that most likely the particles size distribution above 53 µm include large quantities of material in the 100, 1000, and 10,000 µm range. As a point of reference a µm is 1/25,000 of an inch. This tells me that the notion that the average size of the 'pulverized' concrete could not have been 60 µm.

In short Hoffman analysis is no analysis - it is tripe based on wishful thinking. And this was from the first two paragraphs of the introduction. The rest of it is even worse that this.

From your link (which is dead BTW):

>>These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass). ...

In morphologic analysis we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton).<<


So, according to this analysis, a significant part of the dust was composed of "construction materials" (other than glass fibers) and a significant portion was non-fibrous. I guess that's where you have look if you want to find the concrete dust.


At the site quoted below I learned that:

Some dust samples are showing 30-60% silicates

(World Trade Center Dust: Its Potential to Interact with Artifacts & Works of Art, http://aic.stanford.edu/health/wtc1.html)

Ouote:

"Silica and silicates occur in many forms. Synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF) or fiberglass are widely used for insulation and have a presence at the site<8>. When these staple glass fibers have dusts less than 3.5 microns (diameter) x 10 microns, they are considered a health hazard <5, 8>. (...) Another amorphous form of material largely composed of silica is window glass. In this instance, it would be present as a silica dust, also monitored."

"Other crystalline silicate powders normally occur in cities as buildings weather. The 'canyons of Wall Street' and, Manhattan generally, have large quantities of cement and concrete. As a construction material, concrete is a mixture of portland cement, sand, gravel, and crushed stone, reinforced with steel rods and mesh <2>. Portland cement is a hydraulic cement: water activated, set, and hardened into non-water soluble material, containing the hydrated forms of tricalcium silicate (3CaO×SiO2) and dicalcium silicate (2CaO×SiO2) <5>. Thus, non-fibrous forms of silicates and other inorganic minerals are typically present in urban dust. Concrete, cement, and mortar dusts, become alkaline when moisture is present; materials susceptible to alkaline degradation or alkaline-triggered reactions could be affected. Some dust samples are showing 30-60% silicates <1>. ..."

---

Further you make the rather absurd claim that

"most likely the particles size distribution above 53 µm include large quantities of material in the 100, 1000, and 10,000 µm range."

when you were talking about

"bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke" ...


Given the countless images (such as the ones below) of huge amounts of very fine dust, it seems counterintuitive to assume particle sizes larger than 60 or maybe up to 100 microns in diameter.

60 µm seems to be some kind of standard for stone powders (http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm).

I have some samples of very fine beach sand which consists of particles definitely smaller than a tenth of a millimetre (which would make them <100 µm, I suppose).

This sand looks pretty much like the powders seen below:

Hoffman's analysis is flawed from the get go because he is basing it on faulty information.

He states

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers

A few problems here. The concrete was not thoroughly pulverized. A portion of it was. I would guess the percentage of concrete that was pulverized to or below the 60 micron range is quite small compared to the other constituents in the dust cloud. Which consisted of many other materials, all far easier to crush than concrete: cellulose products, gypsum, glass, mineral wools, plastics to name a few of them. (BTW most of these have sillicates)

People see to forget that the WTC's had the following on each floor.

An acre of ceiling tile. Hundreds of offices with plaster walls, Each elevator (approx 30 on each floor) and the three stairwell had 2.5 inches of wallboard around them for fire protection. Each floor had tons of paper, plastics, etc. Yet guys like Hoffman somehow think the cloud was made up of almost only pulverized concrete.

There was a huge dust cloud with some concrete in it. There was NOT a huge pulverized concrete dust cloud.

He also gets the potential energy of the towers incorrect. He states

FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

If you back calculate the weight of the towers based on E=mhg, the weight calculates to a mere 200,000 tons. No where have I seen that numbers used as the weight of the towers.

"the weight of the towers based on E=mhg, the weight calculates to a mere 200,000 tons"

Is that why the explosives were set off down in the levels underneath the towers?

You figured it out. :toast: :party: :party: :toast:

BTW, what do you mean it is still to heavy?

... given the language of your contributions here which seems to support your claim of being an expert.

However, in our short exchange here I finally changed my mind.

You continuously misrepresent what Hoffman says. How does he "get the potential energy of the towers incorrect" when he does nothing else than quote FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report?

You couldn't find it?

Like, e. g. here: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm?

In Chapter two, on page 2-27, point 2.2.1.5 at the top of the page, you will find the quote exactly as provided by Hoffman.


As to your other points: that the dust cloud contained also other materials - who has ever denied that? Of course, there was lots of other stuff, any number of coffee cups and toilet bowls must be counted in, and acres of tiles, although I don't think that each and every square inch in the WTC was covered with tiles, would be highly unusual for office buildings.

Hoffman says the "largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete". Nothing in his text supports your allegation that "guys like Hoffman somehow think the cloud was made up of almost only pulverized concrete."


>The concrete was not thoroughly pulverized<?

How do you know that? Got any pictures of half-inch sized concrete marble heaps at the WTC site?


>I would guess the percentage of concrete (...) is quite small compared to the other constituents in the dust cloud.<

How small? 30-60 percent perhaps?

Even if it was smaller - so what? Hoffman's argument still stands (it is not so much about the crushing anyway) -- as long as a real expert comes along and destroys it with serious and honest arguments for all of us lesser beings to see.

First, yes I stand corrected about the weight, I forgot to convert back to english units. My bad.

Now regarding the dust cloud, and what Hoffman has to say.

His words

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers


First what quantitative analysis is he talking about? Then him stating that a thorough pulverization took place clearly implies that he believes nearly all of the concrete was pulverized. He then goes on to state that it is well documented that nearly all non-metallic materials with the largest constituent being concrete was pulverized into a fine powder. There is no documentation that I am aware of that indicates this. On the contrary there is documentation that refutes this claim.

He then states

but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. Those estimates imply the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy.

If he is saying the 135,000 KWH needed to pulverize the 90,000 tons of concrete is larger than the total potential energy source of the tower, he must believe and be basing his calculations on the notion that nearly all the concrete was thoroughly pulverized. That is what Russel calculation is based on.

He then goes on to state;

Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

Which mischaracterizes what Lioy is stating and then out of the thin air pulls the number of 60 microns being the high estimate for the average concrete particle. Note he doesn't say dust particle he is specifically speaking about concrete again. Please also note that he has no clue what the average particle size really is but is basing the energy calculation on this anyway. He then further shovels dirt on himself by engaging in a bit of hyperbole by stating that perhaps 135,000 KWH is conservative.

The guy is trying to sell the notion that the dust cloud is made up of almost only pulverized concrete. And that the available energy in the towers was not sufficient.

Don't expect anyting as convincing as physical evidence from these jokers. Or any acknowledgement of the numerous eye-witness accounts that said quite specifically that virtually all of the concrete on thie site was reduced to powder. Or pictures of the ~35' by one acre pile of unpulverized concrete that each tower left behind.

Expect lots of handwaving, the obligatory snarky comments, and tortuous indirect arguments "proving" that it just couldn't be true, and the assertion that this "obvious" untruth proves that the whole analysis is beneath contempt. It's the same playbook he's worked from for years now, and it's not going to change based on any evidence or rational analysis.

Now that is something in short supply from the conspiracy believer.

Has it ever been provided by the WTC demo believers?

Or any acknowledgement of the numerous eye-witness accounts that said quite specifically that virtually all of the concrete on thie site was reduced to powder.

You keep talking about those eyewitness accounts that state "specifically that virtually all of the concrete on the site was reduced to powder," but have you ever posted them? Not that I can remember.

Or pictures of the ~35' by one acre pile of unpulverized concrete that each tower left behind.

If you look at one of the FEMA report they show piles of concrete at the site they sorted the debris. I did post that photo a few times. Also if you look closely at many of the photos taken of the rescue effort you will notice lots of concrete debris.

was supposed to prove what anyway?

I've lost track of this.

Was there some reason why a controlled demolition would produce powder while an accidental structural collapse would not?

I came to the same conclusion, assuming a constant density of the towers along the height (196 kilo tons). But that is based on the energy given in the FEMA report, page 2-27.
If you are not satisfied with this result, you suggest that the FEMA number is wrong. Or what is your conclusion?