WTC Collapses

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes

It may be impossible to fight city hall but it is certainly possible to ridicule them.

The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. And took 3 years and spent $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report that can't come up with 232 simple numbers. The world's only super power is a pathetic joke.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is in response to the first part of post 30 in this thread.

The towers essentially came straight down, but in a mushrooming way, exploading symetrically outwards. Here's a picture from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note that WTC 7 was only hit by lighter debris and yet it suffered more damage then buildings that got the brunt of the debris.

All that was required was a very energetic controlled demolition; the symetry was there, it just exploded outwards more then a normal demolition, which generally tries to keep debris in its own footprint.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is in response to psikeyhackr's post 121 in this thread.

Definitely a good line in this case.

I don't think it's impossible, although I'm not sure if 'fight' is the best word to use. I think what is needed is education. People have to understand the issues. When they do, politicians will find it impossible to ignore and have to answer questions that at present they feel are unnecessary to answer.

I wouldn't exactly put it that way. Put another way, my guess is that you're an american yes? Do you consider yourself to be part of a 'pathetic joke'? I'll be honest with you. There are times when I wonder whether my life will improve. Many times, I find it impossible to even find the motivation to look for a job. And yet, despite this, even if I were to die of malnutrition or what have you, I still think that my life would have been worth the trouble. I would have said a few things before going off into that good night and seriously, what more does anyone really do? And can one really say that it isn't enough?

The problems that face the U.S. and the world are myriad. 9/11, ultimately, is only one of many. I simply have found it to be a good focal point at this point in time in my life. To me, it exemplifies a lot of things that are wrong in North America (I'm Canadian). To this idea that authority figures would never be mistaken and/or lie about such things. In time, I may move on to other issues, but for now it holds my attention.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is in response to alaska1976's post 118 in this thread.

You must think we're made of time or something

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Unfortunately, no one here (to my knowledge at any rate) is being paid to do such an in depth investigation. At present, I'm more interested in making it clear that controlled demolition is the most plausible reason for the WTC building collapses. When that is firmly established, I may indeed find it a good idea to investigate the issues you bring up. Ofcourse, you could always jump the gun and investigate the possibility yourself ;-). Another possibility is that you ask in 9/11 truth movement forums, such as abovetopsecret.com, Let's Roll Forums or Loose Change Forums

 

What are you talking about? What’s the point of distinguishing between the two? His opinion , based on the evidence and utilizing his years of experience was that the collapse was caused by the fire.


There may certainly be some details he is not completely sure of, but at no point does he give serious consideration to explosives being responsible, something he makes even clearer in the interview I have linked to.

Your contention that because he uses the words ‘opinion’ and ‘tentative conclusions’, he’s not sure what happened and it may have been explosions is a hopeless attempt to minimize the damage that this expert does to your pathetic conspiracy theory.

He had access to the site and the steel. He was in the best position to come to a conclusion. The ‘reams of evidence’ looks rather silly considering steel buildings have collapsed due to fire.

Sometimes you need to leave your simplistic fantasy land. If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.

Are you serious? You cannot be serious. Two bloody skyscrapers fell on them! What do you expect?

If they fell in their own footprint it is suspicious and if they don’t fall in their own footprint it is suspicious. You are deluded.

There was an investigation. You just don’t like the results.

With a religion such as yours, if there was another investigation and it found nothing you would still not believe it.

That does nothing to explain that gravity wouldn’t be responsible.

His assertion appears to be that because the towers were near free fall speed there was no energy left to pulverize the concrete. The towers may have been near free fall speed but they weren’t at free fall speed. When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went.

The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.

He also claims that there is dust when nothing is moving very fast. When the top thirty floors of a building are crushing down on one it doesn’t matter if you have reached a great speed yet. There is an amazing amount of force there. It can also be misleading estimating speed when looking at something that large.

The mechanism for pulverizing the concrete is no mystery - the building’s weight, gravity and kinetic energy.

Watch the video, if there were explosions where are the blasts?

Scott, you think nuclear devices might have been involved, you thought a missile hit the pentagon and not think a plane flew over the pentagon instead. You blindly read everything these people write and have shown this time and time again.

You are not after the truth, you just want to preach your religion. If you were generally after the truth you would visit debunking sites or the screw loose change guide. You will never stray from the comfort of your pitiful conspiracy sites.

Your gurus are fools.

Such is the nature of the internet and the phenomenon that is the desire to believe in conspiracies. There will always be plenty of links to keep you sure there was a conspiracy. Just as long as you don't think too much or accidentally digest the work of the debunking sites.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not only is "plaguepuppy"s (?) post unconvincing, explosives are not necessarily the answer either. Explosive explode, they don't just make concrete turn to dust. Where are the blasts?

You are constantly employing the false dilemma fallacy. If there are errors in the NIST explanation, and there may certainly be some, that doesn't mean that explosives are the only alternative explanation.

 

Then you haven’t been looking. I can find plenty of documents discussing his original 911 work. Do you want to see these?

There isn’t a lot of material regarding those claims because they are more recent. His work was laughed at for years before he brought those up. They are the last in a long chain. Sites like 911myths and debunking911 addressed the claims made in the document Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? which is what gave him his notoriety. It was a paper full of errors and bad science. Within that document he made claims of thermite while not addressing, or perhaps understanding, the many problems with this claim. He was only interested in the conspiracy explanation.. His early work was so poor, and I am talking about the thermite claims as well, that when he comes up with these new, slightly different claims, I don’t think many really bother. How many wrong things can someone say before people don’t take them seriously?

As mentioned, these claims only from the last year so while I can produce many articles discussing thermite/thermate generally, I can only find a few that mentions them specifically and most are jref forum posts.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres

Are you interested in seeing the forum posts?

 

Response to last part of post 30 in this thread.

You make it sound like a stronger building when it was in fact a weaker one. 9/11 Research makes this clear.

 

Been working on the website for this thread. I've begun to cite -who- has made the arguments I'm countering, as well as the posts where those arguments were made. It makes it easier for me to keep track of things and some (such as myself) who would like a somewhat more organized discussion might appreciate seeing what arguments have and have not been countered yet (from whatever side you're on). Still has a ways to go, but I believe it's progressing nicely. Here's the new link:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/

 

DEBUNK = refute, expose, disprove, to remove bunk.

I was hoping that you were going to show something that "debunks" Professor Jones' work, but when pressed, it seems you can only offer "discussions" of his "original" 911 work, ok.

You are saying there has been no refutation of this work, strange then that you stated "a joke that were debunked long ago", (and by the way those discoveries were announced more than a year ago, and Jones' first draft paper was only announced 2 and something years ago)

Using ridicule against someone is not a refutation of a claim. If you are saying you believe his work is bunk because you have seen people laugh at it, then you have only shown that you have a propensity for herd-think.
You do know that laughing at someone is not part of the scientific method, don't you?

Those sites do not refute Professor Jones work.

In case you didn't notice- you didn't actually say anything that refutes or debunks Jones work, you just used a lot of unsubstantiated negative words relating to him and his work, perhaps it is us that should be laughing at you.

You are saying you are not able to produce anything to refute or debunk Professor Jones' work, did you forget by now that you said ".. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago…."

do you think a laundry list of largely absurd possibilities constitues a refutation ?
Do I refute Newton by suggesting that it could be the earth moving towards the apple?

fly-ash in the concrete? concrete samples from the wtc were crushed and tested, these spheres were not found in the crushed concrete samples! the chemical signatures of the spheres do not match fly-ash, and 1.5mm is too big for fly-ash.

printer toner? the spheres were varying sizes up to 1.5mm. have you ever seen printer toner particles? printer toner is practically like liquid!

There is nothing else there that could be considered to debunk or refute Jones' work.

I asked you to show the proof that formed your belief that Jones work has been refuted, and you are pointing me to a forum of political anti-truth fanatics posing as skeptics who are unable to refute Jones' work? is this as good as it gets?

 

No, it isn't.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was born within the geographic boundaries of the US.

Human beings were born on the planet before nations existed. Nationalism is psychological crap just like religion. Rather like a religion base on geographic boundaries rather than dogma. I can see why the separation of church and state is such a problem for European social-psychology.

Yeah there are bigger fish to fry than 9/11. I started trying to cook one before 9/11.

http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

So now economists get to talk about bailing out automobile companies even though they have not been talking about the depreciation of that garbage that was designed to become obsolete for the last 50 years.

Like what is the total depreciation of all of the automobiles in the world each year? Shouldn't that be relevant to econometrics? If everyone had been taught accounting and told to concentrate on NET WORTH instead of jobs for the last 50 years what would be the current state of the economy?

psik

 

Pathetic. Your response is an indication of the desperate measures you will go to try and defend your pitiful conspiracy. You knew exactly what I was referring to when I used the term ‘discussion’. I was referring to an analysis (debunking) of his work. Jones has made many claims, dozens in fact. You were inquiring about the last one or two. This is either because you are ignorant and don’t know about the other embarrassing claims or you conveniently forget them. I wanted to know if you wanted to see refutations of these claims or the majority of his work. You chose not to answer.

To say that that was my intent makes you a fool or dishonest. You can decide which.

He most certainly brought up the chips this year and I thought he brought up the spheres within the last 12 months. I may be wrong. Be more specific if you intend to correct me.

Once again, there are plenty of refutations of his work. It is somewhat strange that you haven’t come across any yet. Actually it's probably not. I will ask the question that you ignored in the previous post. Do you want to see refutations on his work in general, or do you only want to see refutations of the last of many claims?

You may of course dodge this question and post again ...with large text. Hopefully bigger this time.

As I tried to explain to you, the last of his many claims hasn't been taken very seriously. If you want to assume that there is no debunking because of this you are welcome to. You will only be deluding yourself.

Yes ...they do.

Because you ignored my question. Perhaps you choose the words from each post that suits you and ignore the rest. It appears to be a conspiracy theorist trait.

Are you not aware of Jones’ original work? Are you only aware of his recent claims of the spheres and chips?

That is the interpretation of someone desperately trying to get out of an argument before it begins.

… and I asked you specifically if you wanted to see debunking of the majority of his claims of just the last one that you kept mentioning. Instead of answering you chose to accuse me of saying that there is no refutation of his work. This is the type of bul#$% I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists. Honesty and evidence means nothing to you people. Just keep the conspiracy religion going with whatever methods possible.

Do you want to see some refutations of Jones' work or are you going to keep playing childish games?

 

I thought it was clear.

What's with all the insults and abuse? Abu-Ghraib closed for the weekend?

 

11 months ago. Dec 2007 boston conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090

18 months ago, May 2007. vancouver conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6psgCNFm6g&e

 

Actually I did a good amount of research into the demolition issue. If Bush was behind it, not wanting to hurt to many people he would have had the towers brought down as was done, less civilian deaths and building damage. But if a terrorist was really at fault, no one considers the fact they would never have planted the charges to produce a pancake effect. They would have set the charges to topple the towers where they would have done the most and greatest amount of damage as in falling a tree.

Of the possibility that charges were used, there were over forty pillers on each floor making the core that held up each building. Pretend the detonation of just twenty pillers could collapse a floor. Each tower had 110 floors. Pretend every fifth floor had to be sabotaged with charges in order to collapse the entire building.

You can analize the outside to make theories but if you begin from the inside, consider how many people you would need to drill into the posts, plant several charges for each post and refill each hole with cement, figure out the time for when they could do the drilling so security and workers would not wonder why engineers are drilling into multiple posts on multiple floors and figure out how long it would take to complete the work.................I can say when you begin to consider all of that, it looks less and less like charges were even used.

 

And what if security was the one planting the explosives?

Secrecy Surrounds 9/11 Investigation

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

What if you could get the Port Authority to do a "Power Down" the weekend before 9/11, then get in a bunch of people to go about doing it?

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down, Wing TV

'Power Down' Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down, The Truth Seeker

Scott Forbes 9/11 power down: The Elephant In The Room - Youtube video

9/11 Review, a conspiracy debunker site claims that no half smart inside jobber would do something so obvious. To whit:
"It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack..."

And this is even better:
"Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all."

Ah, but the Bush W.'s administration was an administration misunderestimated. If there was -one- administration that could have done such a foolish mistake in their inside job, I think the Bush W.'s administration would have good chances indeed.

 

Well you probably shouldn’t post it as evidence if you can’t support it.

It appears that way though.

But so far it appears that you have just replicated this forum with certain posts missing. I’m too lazy to put a site together so I’m not criticizing your effort it’s just that I don’t think it will capture the discussion being had here.

Nope. Investigation by who? Even many NGOs rely on the government for funding. Who is independent? Poorly qualified armchair youtube experts and theologians?

Don’t know, but if there was a massive conspiracy and they were capable of paying or scaring off firefighters to deal with their comrades dying, killing off the passengers, making the 100+ people at the pentagon lie, somehow manager to get inflammable explosives on every floor on the WTC to simulate a collapse well then don’t you think they could come up with a much easier way to hide or fudge these files without collapsing the building which didn’t achieve that much anyway. ?

But did he really so that well out of the deal? After a long legal dispute he didn’t get nearly enough to even rebuild it. It wasn’t worth the effort. To suggest that his part of the whole massive, implausible super conspiracy involving potentially thousands of people was to make a few dollars is just getting silly.

He did choose to rebuild btw..

Money he lost when he chose to rebuild. Does 500 million really matter to someone who is able to produce 6.3 billion?

Symmetrically outwards? The collapse of WTC1 was not symmetrical. Debris fell out of every side but that didn’t make it symmetrical. You throw in words like that to try and make it look suspicious.

Those buildings were so damaged that they partially collapsed. The damage was not repairable and they had to be demolished.

WTC7 was heavily damaged when WTC1 collided with it. Look at these photos.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

Notice the shape of the debris colliding with WTC7. The straight lines there make it look like there are still walls partially intact colliding with the top of WTC7.

Nonsensical. You are trying to duck and dodge. The collapses weren’t symmetrical and they didn’t collapse into their own footprint. Move on.

 

Once again Scott, you need to stop believing everything you read. Your conspiracy sites are not reliable sources of information.

1. Bush's brother was not associated with Securacom in 2001.

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_2.cfm

“Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
“


2. There are many problems with the “power down” claims..
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

....such as the claims coming only from one person and the claim being made about only one tower!

Even 911 review have doubts about Forbes.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

 

This is in response to KennyJC's post 32.

could you name this 10 story building you speak of? Secondly, I have a strong feeling that your knowledge of how much kinetic energy is necessary to bring down the WTC center is somewhat lacking. Perhaps it was heavier, but you fail to understand just how strong the WTC buildings were.

Or atleast that's what you'd like to believe. One of the towers suffered fire that was allegedly more massive in 1975 or so, but there was no collapse there.

I believe you would be talking about the Madrid tower there. That argument has already been dealt with in this thread