Serious question for Truthers

[Batrabill]

One piece of evidence that seems uncontrovertible is that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 began very close to where the planes hit.

It is clear that there is a failure of one or more floors close to the fires. This either triggers the collapse (if you think the building fell down) or is the first initiating failure (if you think it was blown down)

Therefore, if the buildings were wired throughout with explosives, then to make the buildings come down as they did will require the explosives on those floors to fire first, then sequentially down the building.

In CD the explosives are rarely fired in one go. Delays are put in the system so that the effect of gravity is maximised. These delays are either electrical and relatively easy to set, or physical when using det cord/shock tube.

The explosives must be placed very regularly in the building to allow for variability in where the planes hit. if the plane hits on floor 50 and you've wired floor 60 it is going to look fake.

Either you have a poorly trained terrorist flying the plane or some fly by wire jock back at base, and there must be a fairly large margin of error allowed for. I can't remember which plane did a steep bank just before impact, but it doesn't suggest a pefect hit.

So to make this look good, the building is wired up every 2, 3, 4? floors. Between 50 and 100 - the area the plane should hit? (You realise I'm making this up, so feel free to argue with these guesses)

At the least, that means a minimum of 12 floors fully wired up with explosives in the middle of the building.

I say fully wired up because one of the reasons you believe it is a CD is that the buildings fall in a symetrical way. If the building is super strong and ridgid (the reason you wont believe it just fell down) then to make it fall you must have the facility to cut away a high number of the load bearing members on each of these floors.

I wont even speculate on how many charges are needed, and it doesn't matter if they are HE, Thermite, or potty putty. These charges will sever the load bearing columns, that's all that matters.

So, the planes hit and now you have to arrange the delays in the system so that the collapse is initiated at the correct place, (that's what we observe) and then work their way down the building.

You may doubt this is necessary, but imagine you completely sever the load bearing structures at the ground first. What you will view then is the entire building moving. I don't think you even claim that is what happens.

You also, because you wont believe that the falling mass of the upper floors destroys the floors below, need to have explosives all the way to the ground to "pulverise the building into micron dust"

So, on that basis lets assume we rig up every 6th floor with a ring of charges.
We now have about 19 floors fully rigged with explosives.

I don't want to make life more difficult, but you all seem to believe that dropping huge structures from 1000 feet up will not be sufficient to destroy them totally (something I have witnessed in tower blocks of just 20 stories.) So you might want to rig up the upper floors too.

Problem here is - the upper floors are disconected. A plane just flew through all the wires/shock tube.

So the upper floors are going to need radio control. Never been done before, but theoretically possible. Needs to be carefully timed to go off on the way down or it will be a real giveaway. The radio control HAS to work or we'll end up with wired-up rubble.

So here are the logistical problems we need to overcome.

1 Rigging - this is a lot of work. Shaped charges to cut the steel, externally fitted, so they will have to be disguised.

Thermite not needed. Just a fantasy solution. In my view, as soon as I hear the word Thermite I think Loony Tunes.

2 Wiring
A hell of a wiring job. If you enter a building just before CD it is THICK with wires or Shock Tube. So we are looking at miles of the stuff - all hidden.

3 Detonation
The sequencing and timing must be changed in about an hour to fit the impact point of the planes.

If I saw one of these buildings mysteriously give way on floor 39 I would believe in CD, but I don't. The collapse is initiated on the same level as the fires.

4 Staffing
Blowing up the WTC's would have been a great job for a CD expert if it was decided they should be removed - the pinnacle of their profession. I don't believe it would ever have been attempted because of the danger of it going wrong. But I am sure that it could have been done.

I would guess that a blaster would want the buildings for prep for 6 months with a vast team.
Most demolition work is done to remove everything you can from a building before demolition. The placing of the charges is usually a smaller part of the job, but this is BIG.
How many people you gonna get on your team who wont talk?
10? 20? Every one is a risk.
It takes a qualified person somewhere between 10 minutes and an hour to fix one charge. You have thousands. These people need to be well trained or things are going to go wrong.

This is going to be tough doing this at weekends and evenings.

Also, who is in charge? There are not much more than 100 people in the world who have blown up buildings. The big boys, the ones who have actually done big towers and really large buildings, you are talking about the fingers of one hand. The military would be one place to start, but it's not really their field. Not much call for controlled work in the miilitary.

5 Control

The blast has to be coordinated from somewhere, so there has to be somewhere nearby, but not too close, where all the detonation wires must go to. (I've given up on shock tube. It flashes when it fires, a bit of a giveaway)

6 Secrecy
This makes all of the above look easy. This is all happening in New York, and those people are nosy and love to talk.

7 Evidence
As a demolition expert you KNOW that some of these thousands of charges aren't going to go off. We are not talking about nitrogylcerine here, we are talking about HE. This you can burn, hit with a hammer, do anything to and it wont go bang.

You did this damn job in a hurry NOT using demolition professionals but those you trained specially. And, just before you are going to blow up this building they want to crash a plane into it.

This is not going to be good for your wires all twisted togther from charge to charge.

That means you cant afford one detonator or length of explosive to be found.

The people who work at ground zero, they are a worry. I don't know where to start with this one. We can't let them all in on it. So what happens when Fred, whose been in construction for 30 years recognises a detonator? Or a lump of HE? Can we get to the foremen, site supervisors. Phew. pretty hard

(Well you know what? That never happened. Phew. Not one bit of evidence was found.)

Looks a bit daunting as a job of work.

So how about an alternative?

Terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. These two structures were unique in their size, their construction AND vitally, that they are the only buildings to experience a modern jet impacting them well above the ground.

These buildings were not as resistant to these huge impacts and fires as the people who built them thought they would be.

After a while the weakening caused by the fire cause the floors where the fires were hottest to fail. The top section of both towers fell onto the bottom sections. This is a catastrophic act of almost unimaginable force. The buildings failed totally and fell straight down (as buildings do) the force of gravity reducing the fabric of the building to what we all saw removed - rubble. They damaged WT7, which also succumbed to fire. (I think the architects have some answers to give on this one)

So the question is.. which one of these scenarios is more plausible?

I wont even ask WHY?

But I will ask why demolition?

If I was head of Black Operations and I'd managed to get two planes to hit the WTC I'd be thrilled. That sounds hard enough to get away with, so why go that extra mile. Actually, looks more like a million miles, and blow them up as well??

Seems a little far fetched.

[QuitTheirClogs]

[Fallious]

Well you present some interesting arguments, but in my opinion there is a far simpler and more logical approach to initiating the collapse.

The information that the truth movement has uncovered about the Towers construction is not only key in proving the official line on their destruction to be false (for a second time, I hope) but also presents a very obvious mechanism for the towers destruction, with the minimum of precisely positioned explosives required.

We know that the towers core columns were responsible for supporting approximately 60% of the towers weight with significant redundancy. While the external columns were responsible for 40% of the weight (i.e. they supported themselves) and also had significant redundant potential.

Considering this information, if I were a demolition expert tasked with initialising a natural looking collapse at the floors where the planes crashed, but with no visible explosions, i'd simply remove the essential core column support at some point below the impact areas, so placing the towers weight on the external columns and resulting in a natural looking failure at the location with the least capability to carry the weight.

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to post the video of the Tower 2 mast sinking a few seconds before the external columns gave way? This perfectly demonstrates that the core support was compromised before the external columns or floors inside the towers failed.

[paul wright]

The impossibilty of the buildings falling like that has been without additional energy has been explained endlessly.
I don't doubt that explosives were used in taken down the building, though I think the assertation of wiring is seriuosly flawed for the reasons Batrabil gives. Well radio-controlled detonation does give an answer to that in many ways - a far faster job I would imagine for placing the explosives and not dependent on connections remaining intact. Still even there there remains a time difficulty. We have Forbes allegations of a one day powerdown and recabling exercise, and Williams assertion of several powerdowns. Is that enough, even assuming remote control.

I tend to believe William R's testimony of an explosion in the subbasement before the first plane hit and that he and his colleagues were lifted up as it happened on the floor where they were standing.And that he rescued a man from where the explosion occurred who was badly injured in the blast. I tend to believe the reporters firefighters and police who reported explosions going off all over the buildings.
I tend to believe the audio and visual evidence in 9/11 Eyewitness.
However the time factor bothers me, and that is why I tend to go along with those others who believe something other than conventional explosives were involved - this is for 1 and 2 of course. 7 was a conventional demolition

[Wokeman]

Batrabill,
There were no terrorists, poorly trained or otherwise. Once that is accepted, things become easier. Yes, a "legend" of the existence of terrorists was created (the 19 were all ID'd), but those guys didn't, couldn't, fly anything, anywhere! The, whatever hit the WTC, were remote controlled.

[Andrew Johnson]

Anonymous poster had either not read or not understood our sign-up notice - hence thread moved.

[Batrabill]

Those Pesky Moderators!

Fallious, do you have any expert (meaning non Loony Tunes) support for that idea?

and dh,

The impossibilty of the buildings falling like that has been without additional energy has been explained endlessly.

You are confusing "has convinced a buch of no-nothing YouTube watchers" with and "explanation"

* off the lot of you

[Stefan]

[pepik]

[Stefan]

Pepik-
Except I didn't say I had proved it- in fact I wasn't even suggesting it had happened that way at all- if you'd bothered to read my post.

The whole conversation the author of this thread wants to have exists in an imaginary speculative world.

His every question is based on "don't you think" "wouldn't you imagine" questions- all I was demonstrating was that there are no doubt an unlimited amount of different possibilities to answer all his questions- we don't know what they are. I offered one plausible scenario- I wasn't stating that was what happened.

You see- I ADMIT that, but you lot assume you know how well a government can keep secrets, assume you know what the intellegence services capabilities are, you assume pretty much everything you want to to keep your fragile world view in tact.

I stick to facts- you lot feed off a priori assumptions and nonsense.

In terms of demolition waves- yes it is perfectly possible for the first four seconds of each collapse to see that several floors are being destroyed with each fresh ejection of pulverised debris. You can do that- I can do that. You need to have some common sense.

[marky 54]

[qoute]
Pepik-
Except I didn't say I had proved it- in fact I wasn't even suggesting it had happened that way at all- if you'd bothered to read my post. [qoute]

exactly why i ignore him/her. he/she will take everything you say out of context and ague about that rather than putting forth any evidence, well apart from the commission report which is why we are all here to begin with.

he/she only argues about wording or pointing out any speculation like the pentagon being secure whilst he/she speculates it isnt. i switched of after a good few posts of circular non evidance based discussion. remember truthers cannot speculate but this person can and you'll beable to predict their next post.

if i say firemen heard explosions this person will say your speculating whilst speculating themselves about what the explosions were, basically a pointless debate that goes on forever and over the same ground.

you just kinda zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

[Batrabill]

Alice in Wonderland

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! it says at the bottom of one of the Moderators posts. *! These people don't want tough questions of their beliefs.

They sideline any argument to a bit of their site that no one reads.

It's so teeange the whole thing.

I actuallu laughed when I saw one reply above where he cuts and pastes a large section of my post and then answers NOTHING.

I never said that security would be breached by people discussing it in the canteen. It is PHYSICAL stuff that would let this Loony Tunes conspiracy down. Getting the people/wiring/explosives into the building.

For instance: the planes which were flown by remote control - some mentally ill people on this site will probably believe that all Boeing planes have a facility for remote control. Anyone who can wipe their own **** knows this is not tru.

So, someone has to retro-fit this kit to serving airliners.

Here, Truthy "journalists" - there's your smoking gun. These planes all have to be taken out of service for this to be done. AND IT WASNT DONE AS PART OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BY NORMAL STAFF. That would require yet more dozens ? of people to be in on the conspiracy.
Airliners are not like cars - they don't go into the garage ever six months and have the bonnet lifted. They are on a permanent turn-around of maintenace and supervision by highly trained people.

The idea that if someone came across HE in the rubble and recognised it they would keep quiet because their supervisor would be cross with them is the sort of rubbish you have to read through on this site.
You are a construction worker caught up in a tragic event where 3000 people died. You come across conclusive proof that this is an inside job and you keep quiet! Stuff like this is a test of your sanity. Which way you going to jump?


One of the fundamental problems with many of the people on this site is that they seem so far from the real world. In Hollywood, they devise new bits of kit, take them out in the world and they work 100% first time. Complicated plans go like clockwork. I think the image many of the Truthers have is of this kind of absurd Hollywood fantasy rubbish.
It strongly suggests that most of them have never done anything.

For the first time ever we are going to blow up 3 buildings using High Explosive and an untested new radio controlled system. If it fails the entire Administration will be tried for murder. Or, if one tell-tale piece of evidence is left the whole plot will be revealed. In Hollywood that makes sense, in the real world......


Just for the record here are the real problems with your argument:

Why??? Why WHY WHY??? WHY DO THEY DO THIS????
AND WHY IN THE MOST COMPLICATED WAY POSSIBLE???

Thermite Thermate - If my 11 year-old believed in this I would be embarassed.

Building defied the laws of Physics. Repeating this doesn't make it true.
You sad, sad, lot.

No physical evidence of explosives.

In Hollywood this is easy. You right a line of dialogue that says "So all the detonators will fire even if they don't get a signal?"

In the real world...NO. NO. NO. NO! You listening?? NO!

You can only believe a lot of this if you don't get out much.

ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS FOLKS!!

[marky 54]

[Serge]

[KP50]

Well Batrabill, you don't sound all that open minded to me. I think you need to stop wondering about the why and the how and look at the what first. After all, trying to assess which is "more likely" is no use if you decide that one theory doesn't actually fit the evidence. So here is my advice if you actually want to look into this, I doubt you will but I may be surprised. And this is all really simple stuff .....

Here is my 3 step process for assessing the demolition of the towers.

1. Go onto YouTube and find a clear and close up view of the collapse of the south tower (the first to fall). This one will do for now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA). Observe the top 25-30 stories of the tower - the ones above the impact zone. Notice how they appear to tilt as the collapse starts. Bear in mind that these are your huge force meant to be driving down smashing all the other floors, whereas they appear to be toppling rather than slamming.

2. Now mentally run through the collapse process - invisible now due to the dust cloud - and imagine those 25-30 stories wreaking their havoc as they topple downwards.

3. Now find the rubble pile that those 25-30 stories must surely produce - broken up a bit but surely recognisable as a former tower crashed to earth.

So your 2 options are

a. A convincing rubble picture OR
b. An explanation of how those top 25-30 stories disappeared.

[pepik]

[mobypaterson]

I think what a lot of people forget, is that no-one has the answers. Everyone thinks they do, but ultimately no-one does. "Truthers" (I hate that word, but it's as good as any at the minute) believe they have found the answers in films like Loose Change and other films of their ilk whilst other people believe that the 911 Comission answered all that could be answered.

The real truth is that no-one knows what's going on. The 911 Comission, NIST and Popular Mechanics all have flaws and omissions (remember the US administration had to be practically forced to investigate 911) as do the 'alternative' sources of information.

We shouldn't be arguing with each other about "explosions" or "bombs in the building" we should be putting pressure on our elected Governments to properly investigate the situation and provide us with answers to questions that have never been acknowledged or looked at.

I watched a film called "911 Eyewitness" yesterday and although I had seen it before I didn't appreciate the sound due to my dodgy laptop speakers. Watching it with a quality set of speakers I can now understand the talk of bombs and explosions. There are some really frightening bangs and noises coming from the towers that I hadn't heard before and the sound certainly adds credence to the theory of explosives. . . Before worrying about "how" it could have carried out watch the film and listen out for the noises people are talking about. They are HUGE!! I don't think I've ever heard a feasible explanation to the talk of "huge explosions" expressed by most tv newscasters on the morning of 9/11... Why not?



Arguing in this roundabout way goes nowhere and leaves everyone frustrated with the opposite parties lack of understanding of events (ie. party no1 "I'm right", party no2 "No I'm right!") Everyone just shouts louder and louder until people get fed up and leave...


Sorry for this mini rant. . . feel free to get back to arguing







All in my humble opinion of course

[gg]

[Johnny Pixels]

[Batrabill]

Here is how a lack of knowledge becomes misinformation, becomes a false belief.

READ THIS, POSTED ABOVE

Here is my 3 step process for assessing the demolition of the towers.

1. Go onto YouTube and find a clear and close up view of the collapse of the south tower (the first to fall). This one will do for now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA). Observe the top 25-30 stories of the tower - the ones above the impact zone. Notice how they appear to tilt as the collapse starts. Bear in mind that these are your huge force meant to be driving down smashing all the other floors, whereas they appear to be toppling rather than slamming.

2. Now mentally run through the collapse process - invisible now due to the dust cloud - and imagine those 25-30 stories wreaking their havoc as they topple downwards.

3. Now find the rubble pile that those 25-30 stories must surely produce - broken up a bit but surely recognisable as a former tower crashed to earth.

So your 2 options are

a. A convincing rubble picture OR
b. An explanation of how those top 25-30 stories disappeared.

To Truthers this may sound plausible BUT IT IS SO, SO, SO WRONG.

You all seem to think that a Controlled Demolition blasts the building into small bits of rubble that then fall to earth. This is WRONG. It is quite possible to totally destroy a multistory building by removing one floor.

The process is to preweaken the load bearing structures. So, if the building has 100 columns then 50 or 60 might be removed on a lower floor. The explosives are then usually drilled into the remaining columns and then detonated.

What happens then is that the entire building starts to fall. This is where blasters say "get the building moving, gravity does the rest"
It is not necessary, in many buildings, to do ANY further blasting to destroy them utterly. You will end up with a pile of rubble but only a few columns were destroyed by explosives.

In most demolitions other floors will also be cut because there is usually a premium in bringing the building down in it's own footprint. Destroying a number of floors guarantees that there wont be tipping which could damage nearby buildings or infrastructure.

So if you think of South Tower as a CD, then you only need to remove the one floor to initiate the collapse.

The idea that the top floors of the South Tower would be found at the bottom when the dust clears is MORONIC. Let me put that another way. If you think that is how bits of buildings behave when dropped from 1000 feet you are WRONG WRONG WRONG

This is the process - I saw it on YouTube it looks wrong to me. I've found a lunatic on the internet who agrees with me. Hey Presto. Belief.
WRONG

Let me state this again, because if you can understand this then things will become clearer.

Buildings appear really strong when they are in position. If they start to fall all their strength, which is the right amount and a little bit more to stay standing in a 150 year wind, totally disappear.

Find someone who works in demolition and ask them what they would expect to find of the top floors of the South Tower. I can assure you, I promise you that if they are sane and know what they are talking about, the answer will be b* All. the building is not ridgid and stiff. If you drop it from a great height it will totally fall apart. You don't need Black Helicopters or Drone bs.

Buildings are not like balsa wood models. If failure sets in, they fall apart.

I do think this is where so many of you go wrong. You don't understand how a building can fall apart therefore it must have been blown into little pieces.

Sigh. It's a shame that on this site anything negative is relegated to this area.

If you want the truth then you have to listen too.

Mods, you jumped-up little rule makers. You'll be the first to go corporate.
Listen up.

[Batrabill]

This so much fun,,,



Thanks to the Loose Change website, which isn't so prim as this one for this:

From Wikipedia
Conspiracy Theories

Psychological origins
According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one.[12] This may be attributable to differences in the information upon which parties rely in formulating their conclusions. Thus, a person who believes in a particular conspiracy theory may do so because of awareness of information which is not shared by those that disbelieve the conspiracy theory. In turn, awareness of such information may be correlated with awareness of other information which increases the likelihood that one will believe in other conspiracy theories. Conversely, the lack of awareness of such information may be correlated with the lack of awareness of other information which decreases the likelihood that one will believe in other conspiracy theories.[citation needed]

Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea[citation needed]. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.

Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger[citation needed]. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

Batrabill, you make exteremely good and valid points based on a knowledge of the real world and logic. Unfortunately, you will never convince these "truthers" on that basis. They have absolutely no concept of what is plausible and what is not, in fact they despise the word. They have no grasp of what is real evidence and what is not, and no appreciation of logic. They are simple, rather child-like folk, just playing around with ideas thay have not even begun to think through, starting with their conclusions and picking up or twisting little bits of "evidence" to suit. Their "truth" is a quasi-religious truth, based only on belief.

[gg]

[pepik]

[rodin]

How the West was (possibly) won...

http://www.nolajbs.net/forum/index.php?topic=7690.0

Addresses some of the points made here.

The towers DID come down at free-fall speed for at least a sizeable portion of their collapse if not all. Freefall speed is impossible if anything is being broken by impact of falling object since energy is absorbed. Do any so-called scientist-types dispute this?

[pepik]

I didn't see any proof, I see someone claiming to have proved something, in between talking about USraeli spies and explaining how "The Northwoods documents were probably made up by the british agencies and do not expose the zionists in the background controlling the whitehouse or pentagon."

Standard loony bin material.

[rodin]

[gg]

[Stefan]

Batrabill,
You say you are asking serious questions, yet all you throw up is speculation and a priori assumptions.

Stick to questions about serious evidence, if you ask a speculative question all you can get is speculative answers, and if you really are serious about getting to anykind of truth (rather than vehemently sticking to a preconceived and fixed opinion about what happened) then you will agree with me this is pointless.

Try discussing

1. Explosions
The fact that there are multiple and corroborated reports of pre collapse explosions. These are from police, firefighters, tower employees, by standers and every journalist on the scene from BBC to Fox. Even the fire fighters radio calls to their base controller detail these secondary explosions. You must accept in a court case this many independent corroborations would result in an acceptance these explosions happened.

2. Molten metal
a) Physical
FEMA discuss in their report two samples of structural steel (they believe one from WTC7 and one from one of the towers but cannot be sure) were recovered from ground zero. They had suffered a severe heat corrosion attack with oxidation, sulfidation and severe intergranular melting.
Empirical
A stream of glowing orange metal which is sparking is seen pouring from the side of the S.Tower just before it collapses. NIST did not mention this in their report yet tried to wave it away through a paragraph in a fact sheet not backed up by any analysis or testing which claimed that if you mixed organic materials with aluminium it glowed silver. Testing Steven Jones undertook suggested it would infact just burn up and not mix at all.
Eye witness testimony
Emmergency workers, firefighters, structural engineers and many others saw molten metal "glowing orange" flowing in channels and sitting in pools in the depths of ground zero in the early days.

3. The existence of heavily re-inforced sky lobbies and maintenence floors.
Which were not supported with the truss system, but by heavily reinforced grids of i beams. Did you see any delay in the near free fall "collapse" at these areas?
No.
But we did see enormous squibs (puffs of dust to you) erupt from the building at these precise points.
No one who has attempted to offer a mechanism for the gravitational collapse has factored these in, they falsley spec the whole tower had truss supported flooring.

There is no point discussing "why hasn't anyone talked" or "why didn't anyone notice" or any other speculative rumination which is completley unrelated to evidence and is based entirely on your imaginative assumptions on how systems we know nothing about run.

If you have serious questions- lets hear them. I haven't heard anything which approached an interest in any of the real questions behind 9/11.[/b]