Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse?

[scott3x]

Moderator note: It appears that a debate on this topic was started without clear agreement as to the debate format. Readers are warned that the resulting debate does not really fit the format of the Formal Debates forum. It is retained here for those who are interested, although the discussion thread is closed.

[thread=90058]Proposal thread[/thread]. [thread=90071]Debate thread[/thread]. [thread=90070]Discussion thread[/thread]

I wish to debate any civilized person(s) on the topic of the World Trade Center collapses/partial collapses (there were a few that didn't collapse completely) and whether or not some of them were taken down by controlled demolition.

For the purposes of this discussion, I define a civilized person as:
One who will not use the following personal attacks on anyone in the debate that includes the words:
anything with the f word, moron, stupid, idiot or (if a woman), whore and bitch. Debaters may also not use derivations of these terms- that is, no fing whatever, moronic, stupid (argument, etc.), idiotic, bitchy.

Acceptable put downs- obtuse, lame, shoddy.

I will be on the side that some were indeed taken down by controlled demolition. I also wish that it be possible that the following people be allowed to join my side of the debate:
Tony, Headspin, psikeyhackr and leeray.

I suggest the following rules for the debate:

1. We will each post one "introductory" post, setting out our main arguments.
2. There will then be an indefinite amount of follow-up and rebuttal posts from each debater, in which the debaters may address and refute points made by the other person(s), as well as adding any new points that may come up.
3. Finally, each debater will post one concluding post, summing up their side of the debate. Following the concluding posts, the thread will be closed.
4. Debaters each have a week from the time of posting of a post by their opponent to post their next post. If none of the debaters from a particular side posts in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed.
5. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites.

 

[MacGyver1968]

'Lil be yer huckleberry. (translation: If you are looking for an opponent, I would gladly fill that role and accept your terms, except this one's between you and me. Que the "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" opening theme music)

Let's start with an easy one.

We are both in agreement (I presume) that the collapse began at the impact site. Therefore, any demolition devices responsible for the initiation of the collapse would have had to be located in that area.

We are also in agreement that there were 3 main structural components to the WTC towers, the heavy inner core columns, the lighter outer box of exterior columns, and the floor joists that connect them. (agreed?)

Therefore, demo charges responsible for starting the collapse must have been at the impact site, and effecting one or more of these 3 parts, and would have had to been activated before the collapse began.

Where in your opinion were the demolition devices placed?

(Shaking hands before the match begins) Scott, this is formal debates. While the discourse will be more civil, the expectations for you defending your OWN position will be higher...bring your "A" game...or this thread will begin with my second favorite line from a Western movie and end with my favorite..."You just shot an unarmed man!...He shoulda armed himself."

 

[scott3x]

'Lil be yer huckleberry. (translation: If you are looking for an opponent, I would gladly fill that role and accept your terms, except this one's between you and me. Que the "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" opening theme music)

Laugh . Well I must admit that you're definitely the most amenable of my opponents. I accept, but I hope that this doesn't preclude the possibility of debates on the subject with others in this forum.

Let's start with an easy one.

We are both in agreement (I presume) that the collapse began at the impact site. Therefore, any demolition devices responsible for the initiation of the collapse would have had to be located in that area.

Agreed. -However-, I contend that the explosive initiation of those devices (or a form of paint coating, as some such as Headspin have mentioned) may have been caused via remote detonation.

We are also in agreement that there were 3 main structural components to the WTC towers, the heavy inner core columns, the lighter outer box of exterior columns, and the floor joists that connect them. (agreed?)

By light outer box columns, do you mean perimeter columns? What you say sounds reasonable. However, I think I will confer with Tony, Headspin and psikey before giving definitive approval. I want to start a discussion thread wherein they may offer their support. Since there is -already- a discussion thread in the pseudoscience forum regarding this topic, I would like this one to have one difference- that they follow my definition of civilized discourse.

Therefore, demo charges responsible for starting the collapse must have been at the impact site, and effecting one or more of these 3 parts, and would have had to been activated before the collapse began.

That sounds reasonable.

Where in your opinion were the demolition devices placed?

I believe atleast some of the demolition material may well have been allegedly put in under the pretense that it was a coating of fireproofing. I also believe there may well have been some explosive devices in various parts of the building, especially in the basement.

(Shaking hands before the match begins) Scott, this is formal debates. While the discourse will be more civil, the expectations for you defending your OWN position will be higher...bring your "A" game...or this thread will begin with my second favorite line from a Western movie and end with my favorite..."You just shot an unarmed man!...He shoulda armed himself."

Lol . Well I'm certainly not as green as when I started over in pseudoscience more then a thousand posts ago

 

[Syzygys]

Well, for fun and education I can take the "no controlled demolition" side as long as it applies to the Twin Towers. I will be using logic and common sense.

The case with WTC 7 is different, because the explanation for its come down is a bit more fishy and I am less decided on that one...

I can even tell in advance what kind of reasoning I will be using. Instead of technical talk, I care more about the logical approach of why, why at that time, why planes needed if there were explosive already at place, why not wait until the towers are full of people, and such....

Remember, if the goal was to cause maximum damage, they could have blown the towers 1 hour later without the whole planes stealing extra and cause 40-50K loss of life. So as long as talk of technicals might be interesting for engineers, as long as one can answer such questions, the whole demolition theory is not standing up to scrutiny.

 

[MacGyver1968]

By light outer box columns, do you mean perimeter columns?

Yes, here is a reference picture showing both the perimeter columns, and the floor joists:

And here is a view of all three components:

A. Please reference the picture above and define exactly where you believe the demolition material was placed.

Agreed. -However-, I contend that the explosive initiation of those devices (or a form of paint coating, as some such as Headspin have mentioned) may have been caused via remote detonation.

Agreed. If devices were used. No one was stupid enough to detonate them locally at the impact site.

What you say sounds reasonable. However, I think I will confer with Tony, Headspin and psikey before giving definitive approval. I want to start a discussion thread wherein they may offer their support. Since there is -already- a discussion thread in the pseudoscience forum regarding this topic, I would like this one to have one difference- that they follow my definition of civilized discourse.

(Fires 3 quick shots at the feet of Scott) This debate is between you and me. I could give a rat's ass (referee blows whistle and points yellow card at Mac) oops..I mean give a care what those individuals have to say. I want to hear what YOU.."Y"..."O"..."U" have to say. If you can't back up your own opinion then please concede now.

I believe atleast some of the demolition material may well have been allegedly put in under the pretense that it was a coating of fireproofing. I also believe there may well have been some explosive devices in various parts of the building, especially in the basement.

Please note the question A above.

 

[leopold]

5. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts.

to any source?

yes indeed scott you really want the truth.

 

[scott3x]

Well, for fun and education I can take the "no controlled demolition" side as long as it applies to the Twin Towers. I will be using logic and common sense.

Well, I'm amenable to debate more then one person at a time; however, I would certainly appreciate it if MacGyver would allow me to have someone helping me on my side . What do you say Mac? Perhaps Tony and Headspin along with me atleast?

The case with WTC 7 is different, because the explanation its come down is a bit more fishy and I am less decided on that one...

Well, it's comforting to know that you atleast see that building as possibly done by controlled demolition.

I can even tell in advance what kind of reasoning I will be using. Instead of technical talk, I care more about the logical approach of why, why at that time, why planes needed if there were explosive already at place, why not wait until the towers are full of people, and such....

I would argue that the planes were a diversion from the truth- that the towers were actually taken down by controlled demolition.

Remember, if the goal was to cause maximum damage, they could have blown the towers 1 hour later without the whole planes stealing extra and cause 40-50K loss of life.

If no planes had been used, all attention would have been on who had access to the buildings to install the explosives. This might lead to finding out the -real- culprits, who I suspecdt are not so interested in being revealed.

So as long as talk of technicals might be interesting for engineers, as long as one can answer such questions, the whole demolition theory is not standing up to scrutiny.

I disagree

 

[MacGyver1968]

Well, I'm amenable to debate more then one person at a time; however, I would certainly appreciate it if MacGyver would allow me to have someone helping me on my side . What do you say Mac? Perhaps Tony and Headspin along with me atleast?

That's what threads are for. I've never participated in a formal debate thread, (moderators please correct me if I'm wrong) These debates are along the lines of the Presidential debates. Two people standing on a virtual stage behind virtual podiums, defending their position.

I don't ever recall McCain or President Obama (hehe..first time to call him that) ever walking off the stage to confer with their advisers. If your position is so weak, then please concede this formal debate and go back our little thread.

Well, it's comforting to know that you atleast see that building as possibly done by controlled demolition.



I would argue that the planes were a diversion from the truth- that the towers were actually taken down by controlled demolition.




If no planes had been used, all attention would have been on who had access to the buildings to install the explosives. This might lead to finding out the -real- culprits, who I suspecdt are not so interested in being revealed.





I disagree

If you wish to debate the audience members, then let's close this thread, and go back to pseudoscience. If you cannot respond to direct questions..the debate is over.

 

[scott3x]

By light outer box columns, do you mean perimeter columns?

Yes, here is a reference picture showing both the perimeter columns, and the floor joists:

And here is a view of all three components:

A. Please reference the picture above and define exactly where you believe the demolition material was placed.

In all honesty, I'm not sure that even Tony or Headspin would know the answer to that. However, they may be able to put out some good educated guesses.

I think this debate has a lot more to discuss then where explosive devices would have to go in order to pull off the type of complete collapses that occurred in WTC 1, 2 and 7. I would certainly want to bring up the fair amount of evidence which suggests that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. I would also want to also discuss how possible the official story theory is; that the collapses occurred due to planes and jet fuel initiated office fires alone.

 

[scott3x]

Agreed. -However-, I contend that the explosive initiation of those devices (or a form of paint coating, as some such as Headspin have mentioned) may have been caused via remote detonation

.

Agreed. If devices were used. No one was stupid enough to detonate them locally at the impact site.

Well, I certainly believe it would be unlikely .

What you say sounds reasonable. However, I think I will confer with Tony, Headspin and psikey before giving definitive approval. I want to start a discussion thread wherein they may offer their support. Since there is -already- a discussion thread in the pseudoscience forum regarding this topic, I would like this one to have one difference- that they follow my definition of civilized discourse.

(Fires 3 quick shots at the feet of Scott)

Hey !

This debate is between you and me. I could give a rat's ass (referee blows whistle and points yellow card at Mac) oops..I mean give a care what those individuals have to say.

Well, technically we're not yet debating yet (we're still in the proposal stage, an admin has to give the approval for a debate). Also, I haven't actually excluded using the term 'rat's ass' (or any other ass for that matter ).

I want to hear what YOU.."Y"..."O"..."U" have to say. If you can't back up your own opinion then please concede now.

I certainly believe I can back up my view that the WTC collapses were taken down by controlled demolition. However, I have never stated that I know every single detail concerning the WTC collapses- for this reason, I reserve the right to confer with my colleagues

I believe atleast some of the demolition material may well have been allegedly put in under the pretense that it was a coating of fireproofing. I also believe there may well have been some explosive devices in various parts of the building, especially in the basement.

Please note the question A above.

Noted, but there's a difference between believing that explosive material was placed in the WTC buildings and knowing where precisely it was placed.

 

[scott3x]

5. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts.

to any source?

yes indeed scott you really want the truth.

Indeed. Besides, either side of the debate may leave the debate laughing if the sources of their opponent are really that bad

 

[scott3x]

Well, I'm amenable to debate more then one person at a time; however, I would certainly appreciate it if MacGyver would allow me to have someone helping me on my side . What do you say Mac? Perhaps Tony and Headspin along with me atleast?

That's what threads are for. I've never participated in a formal debate thread, (moderators please correct me if I'm wrong) These debates are along the lines of the Presidential debates. Two people standing on a virtual stage behind virtual podiums, defending their position.

I don't ever recall McCain or President Obama (hehe..first time to call him that) ever walking off the stage to confer with their advisers. If your position is so weak, then please concede this formal debate and go back [to] our little thread.

Wait a second there. Just because I'd like to confer with my advisers doesn't mean that my arguments are weak. The issue is simply that the reasons why the WTC collapses couldn't have come down via the official story's explanation aren't exactly understood by everyone. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. Some of the aspects are indeed quite complex; and there's no question that I have frequently gotten lost when it comes to going arguments that involve mathematical formulas. For these reasons, I think that it's reasonable that I be able to consult with people who know more on certain aspects of the arguments I will be using. I certainly wouldn't want to deny you this avenue of research as well. In all honesty, I don't see what the problem is with receiving advice- if I hadn't specifically mentioned that I'd like some, you might not even be aware that I'm receiving some of it (I must admit that some of it would look mighty suspicious coming from me though; I'm not exactly known for my deep understanding of physics, for instance ).

Well, it's comforting to know that you atleast see that building as possibly done by controlled demolition.

I would argue that the planes were a diversion from the truth- that the towers were actually taken down by controlled demolition.

If no planes had been used, all attention would have been on who had access to the buildings to install the explosives. This might lead to finding out the -real- culprits, who I suspecdt are not so interested in being revealed.

I disagree

If you wish to debate the audience members, then let's close this thread, and go back to pseudoscience. If you cannot respond to direct questions..the debate is over.

But we haven't even officially -started-. This isn't the debate thread. Only an admin can start an actual debate. We're still on the proposal stage .

 

[leopold]

why not exclude all hearsay evidence altogether?

it's easy to see that you live in the UK, although i could be wrong about that.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I thought I would be courteous and allow you to present your position first. If we need "official" permission to start...sue me for starting early. You obviously need some to time to gather your position together...so I will allow you that time.

I, however, am completely ready to present my argument on "How did the WTC buildings collapse?". You wanted to hear the "Official Story", I believe my opinions do not deviate far , if any, from the official findings.

I will go ahead and take the floor, and type up my position. It will give you time to refine your own position, that you can present later.

(I warned you Scott.. This is a formal debate, and I'm bringing my "A" game, and am not going to cut you any slack whatsoever. You should have already known what you were going to say before you started the thread.)

 

[(Q)]

I wish to debate any civilized person(s) on the topic of the World Trade Center collapses/partial collapses (there were a few that didn't collapse completely) and whether or not some of them were taken down by controlled demolition.

Aside from the official explanations, will you also be debating others whose theories for the collapse are different than yours? Have you successfully debated those theories whereupon your theory was the one selected to be the best theory?

 

[scott3x]

why not exclude all hearsay evidence altogether?

Because many witnesses to the event offer compelling testimony, such as firemen and first responders.

it's easy to see that you live in the UK, although i could be wrong about that.

You are indeed

I live in Canada. You might have tried checking my profile first

 

[MacGyver1968]

(MacGyver stands behind the podium)

How did the WTC towers collapse? It's because of this:

(MacGyver produces a standard wooden meter stick from behind the podium, much like this)

No..I don't think a meter stick brought down the twin towers, but I would like to use it as example of what happens to a long, light-weight structure when under compression, with no external support.

(Macgyver then holds the meter stick at both ends and pushes inward..causing the meter stick to bow in the center)

It bows! Light weight structures, like this meter stick perform very poorly under compression...BUT! (points one finger in the air dramatically)

(Macgyver holds meterstick vertically)

If you add horizontal supports, in tension, evenly along its length, to this flimsy vertical member, that prevent it from bowing, the compression strength of the member greatly increases...and the meter stick can hold much more weight.


I would like to propose that the collapse of the twin towers was initially caused by failure of the light weight floor joists, who's job it was to prevent the perimeter columns from bowing under load, (like our meter stick).


I would like to submit this stock photo (arrows added my me) of a WTC floor joist and it's connection to the perimeter columns as Reference picture #1.

We can clearly see in the photograph, the delicate construction of each individual joist. The joist is made up of a top rail (indicated by the blue arrow) and the bottom rail (pink arrow). These two rails were supported and kept rigid, by a long steel rod, bent in a continuous "M" shape, and welded at the top and bottom (green arrow). It is my opinion that this steel rod was the first component to fail in the system.

The steel structure was protected by blown on fire-proofing. These metal rods presented a small diameter, and little surface area for that type of blown on insulation to stick to. When the massive plane struck the perimeter columns and shattered, many of these key floor joists were damaged or destroyed in the initial impact. Others had their fireproofing stripped from them by high-speed, flying debris.

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel instantly ignited a fire across many floors. These small diameter rods were exposed to temperatures that allowed them to soften to begin to lose their strength. When the rods began to fail, it allowed the top and bottom rail to sag in their center, pulling on the connections at the perimeter wall (yellow arrows) Eventually, the joist would sag enough to cause the connections to the wall to fail, causing the joist to fall to the next floor. When enough of these joists became dislodged, it allowed the perimeter columns to bow (like our meter stick) and fail. These columns were already under more than their designed load, due to the massive hole in the side of the building. The perimeter columns initially were successful in transferring the load around the hole, immediately after the impact...but with a lack of horizontal support to keep them from buckling, they failed.

At that point gravity took over.

And that is what I believe caused the twin towers to collapse.

Thank you.

 

[scott3x]

I thought I would be courteous and allow you to present your position first.

Yes, that's what the proposal stage is for.

If we need "official" permission to start...

Yep...

sue me for starting early.

Well, we can start early unofficially, but I'll respond to everyone and their cousin who responds in a civil manner in this thread; because this thread is -not- the debate thread, just the proposal thread.

You obviously need some to time to gather your position together...so I will allow you that time.

Cool; I mean, I -did- stipulate that both sides would get a week's time to respond to any given post, if we are given the go ahead to officially get started.

I, however, am completely ready to present my argument on "How did the WTC buildings collapse?". You wanted to hear the "Official Story", I believe my opinions do not deviate far , if any, from the official findings.

I will go ahead and take the floor, and type up my position. It will give you time to refine your own position, that you can present later.

Sounds good. I generally prefer responding anyway; it gives me a chance to see my opponents' tactics before I have to commit to a course of action ;-).

(I warned you Scott.. This is a formal debate, and I'm bringing my "A" game, and am not going to cut you any slack whatsoever. You should have already known what you were going to say before you started the thread.)

I have an idea as to the types of things that I'd like to say. However, I find that the specifics of what I'd like to say depends on who I'm saying it to .

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Originally Posted by leopold99: Why not exclude all hearsay evidence altogether? It's easy to see that you live in the UK, although I could be wrong about that.

* * * * MODERATOR'S NOTE * * * *

Leopold: I received your report on this thread. I don't quite understand your complaint. The purpose of this board is to host debates, regardless of how the O.P. is worded. That seems to be what the members are doing.

 

[scott3x]

I wish to debate any civilized person(s) on the topic of the World Trade Center collapses/partial collapses (there were a few that didn't collapse completely) and whether or not some of them were taken down by controlled demolition.

Aside from the official explanations, will you also be debating others whose theories for the collapse are different than yours?

The only theories we will be debating in an official debate between me and MacGyver, assuming that permission for an official debate is actually granted, are the ones that me and MacGyver bring up; MacGyver has already stated that his theory will be similar if not identical to the official story's theory. I myself believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. So that's pretty much the scope of the discussion between me and -MacGyver-. I hope, however, that after we're finished, there could be others. For now, you are always free to bring up any view you wish in the 70+ page discussion that's been going on concerning the WTC collapses over in sciforum's pseudoscience forum.

Have you successfully debated those theories whereupon your theory was the one selected to be the best theory?

I would think so. Clearly, many supports of the official story would disagree. You can see it all over in the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience.