Reply With Quote
Dan or anybody who backs the silly "controlled demolition" theory has yet to name an explosive that can survive a thousand degree fire.
ASSERTION 1:
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where".
When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed but "where" they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.
Since their inception in the late 1800's, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving."
This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning ot fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above, or below the impact points every move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse. (WTC 7 collapsed differently which we will cover later).
Futher there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we're not talkinga dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were comsumed by the collapse from above.
Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.
Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the building with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.
The chemical properties of explosive and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from teh columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.
There are other problems with both scenarios: Given that consistant weight distrobution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quan y of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure. Thoes columns would have needed extensive preparation, also know as "pre-burning, " to allow the explosives to perform their function. And[sic] in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see [emphasis authors-RG]the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.
All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse --working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction -- or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildngs, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.
This is impossible. [emphasis:RG]
A trade magazine implosionworld.com report from people who blow up (ok, blow down) buildings for a living (warning: pdf file)
Dan or anybody who backs the silly "controlled demolition" theory has yet to name an explosive that can survive a thousand degree fire.
I haven't openly backed 'the silly controlled demolition theory', but what I have said is that, you cannot scientifically rule out one theory or the other - either the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, or they collapsed as a result of stress on structural beams at the point of impact, and the calculated work did the rest....
Dan, did the planes fly into the WTC or not?
that's a pretty stupid question. i think that's fact. millions of people saw it. brass tacks........brass tacks.
We live in an ignorant world. Some people actually believe it was trickery and no plane flew in!
You say that as if the two competing theories are equally plausible. They aren't.
Example:
Either the buildings were brought down by magic purple gnomes that chewed on the steel girders or it was brought down by fire and impact damage.
Is the "controlled demolition" theory of the collapse equally plausible with the "fire and impact damage" theory?
Dude you have either got to quit posting here, or change that horribly distracting avatar...
This bogus article has been totally debunked:
Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...ard/index.html
Only a fool would follow Blanchard, he is a snake oil salesman.
Read Hoffman, he's a genius. You'll see.
Wake Up!
So, on the subject of building implosions, I am naturally expected to discount the word of a person who implodes buildings and instead trust the word of a software engineer.
Makes sense.
re s. you heads are disrespecting 343 firefighters that died that day by alledging that their own government would commit mass murder. get the outta here you stupid ing midless ing idoits. i would kick your teeth in if you said that to me in my face. without hesitation.
oh and a "born again" christian is the one credible source that would make all this true. hahahahahahahahaha!
nice try jim bakker.
That was painful. That link was actually something new to me, so I bothered to take the time to read it.
The twists of logic and deduction needed to "debunk" Protec's paper is enough to make anybody familiar with scientific princple and rules of logic want to puke.
The "debunking" is nothing but a rehash of every bit of ty pseudo-science that has come to form the core dogma of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory, from "pulverized concrete" to "seismic evidence".
The best example of how short shrift is given to logic comes when they are talking about that "seismic evidence".
In the same sentence, they imply that 1)it is silly to think that explosives would cause seismic readings, and then 2) point to seismic evidence as proof of explosives.
WTF?
Blanchard's "compelling argument" ... an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) [ignores] public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades).
The only way one can consider Protec's paper "debunked" is if you are already a dogmatic adherent of the Holy Demolition Theory, because that is the only way you can ignore the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting this garbage as an article of faith.
Secondly, here is the hubris of the "truth" movement:
They are wrapping themselves in the cloak of science at the expense of valid science.
The fact that they are trying to assume some sort of victimhood by claiming to be in the same category as Galileo should tell you something. "Help! Help! I'm being repressed."
That is the last gasp of failed ideologies. Instead of admitting that, maybe their theories just don't hold water, they play the victim card. "We're fighting for the "Truth" (tm), buy our t-shirts, videos, and coffee mugs and support our cause".
It is only a matter of time before the nuttier, more fanatical elements of this cult do something really stupid(er).
Blanchard never addresses the core scientific evidence which proves controlled deloition:
1) near free fall speed of collapse
Why hire a controlled demolition company for a million dollares, when you can just douse a few offices with lighter fluid?
How does a "near free fall" prove anything, other than the building fell down?
So, Im still confused...
Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and/or fire, yet fell.
Serious question(s)...why and how?
Simple uncontrolled fires to the best of my knowledge. CTers can't get any traction for their silly ideas when it comes to the towers, so this is their fall back when that doesn't work.
It was hit by another, much larger, building.
WTC 7 was NOT hit by another larger building.
It was hit by some debris that flew (from gravity) 355 feet from the north tower, over, WTC 6, across the street, and then into mostly the SW corner of WTC 7.
NIST has determined that this debris damage played no role in the collapse.
Sure it was.WTC 7 was NOT hit by another larger building.
Considering the north tower was 1368 feet tall. Having a good of it travel 355 feet is plausible. And there are videos and eyewitness testimony showing most of the damage was on the south face of the building from the top almost all the way to the ground.It was hit by some debris that flew (from gravity) 355 feet from the north tower, over, WTC 6, across the street, and then into mostly the SW corner of WTC 7.They said controlled demolition did not play a role in the collapse.NIST has determined that this debris damage played no role in the collapse.
From Popular Mechanics:
Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)
The most popular "Truther" videos of WTC7's collapse don't show the bottom third of the building. Look at the photo above; it's likely the debris that hit WTC7, did so in the lower portion of the building...
Sorry, I'm going to go with sober scientific analysis instead of nutter nonsense.
WTC7 was, indeed, struck by many -- and large -- pieces of a much larger building.
EDIT: You'll notice the NIST did, if fact, determine that debris played a major role in the collapse. You don't lose the facade of a building, to a depth of 25%, along the first 10 floors of a 47 story building without seriously compromising the integrity of the structure.
Last edited by Yonivore; 10-22-2007 at 06:18 PM.
NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7
New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
Abstract: The National Ins ute for Standards and Technology appears to be moving in the direction of a conspiracy theory about the destruction of WTC-7. This comes as a new witness reports explosions inside the building early that morning, long before the building would be destroyed at 5:20 PM. This reinforces Scholars for 9/11 Truth previous finding that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, which the government is trying to conceal.
Madison, WI (OpEdNews) 1 July 2007 – The National Ins ute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appears to be moving in the direction of a “conspiracy theory” about the destruction of WTC-7 on 9/11 just as a new witness has emerged reporting extensive destruction inside the building many hours before it would be demolished.
According to James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, these turns of events provide further confirmation for the conclusion that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET. “Anyone who googles WTC-7 will see an event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition, just as Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reported at the time. That is why this event makes NIST so uncomfortable.”
WTC-7, a 47-story building also known as the Soloman Brothers Building, collapsed about 7 hours after the Twin Towers were demolished. It was hit by no jet aircraft and had no jet-fuel based fires. “It did have a few modest fires, which could have been easily controlled but were allowed to burn,” Fetzer said. “Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on ‘TEST’ status for a period of eight hours.” In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html).
A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose iden y will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.
Rolf Lindgren, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, transcribed the testimony and edited it for clarity of English. The complete transcript is below. The witness went to WTC-7 after the first plane struck the North Tower and before the second hit the South Tower. When he arrived at the 23rd floor, he found half-eaten sandwiches and still-steaming coffee.
He made some phone calls and was told to leave “right away.” Someone ran into the Center and led him to a stairwell. “When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way; there was an explosion and the landing gave way.”
He had to climb back up to the 8th floor to find a way out. When he got to the lobby, “the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had come through and stepped on it.. And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was . . . (and) they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, . . . a hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out.”
WTC-7 has been widely regarded within the 9/11 research community as the most blatant of all “smoking guns” that disprove the official account. According to David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the movement’s leading representative, the building showed all the characteristics of a controlled demolition:
an abrupt, complete, and total collapse at freefall speed, which was perfectly symmetrical and into its own foundation, as he has explained in his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007). “The ‘blast events’ this witness is describing are not ‘hypothetical,” Fetzer observed, “but actual. Only actual events can bring about effects. So it’s a bit labored for NIST to say it’s considering whether ‘hypothetical’ blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. They could not. That requires real blast events.”
The witness, who was interviewed by Dylan Avery (with audio clips played on Alex Jones’ and on Dylan’s shows), has expressed his puzzlement over the destruction of the building. “Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only,” he said, “why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard; I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.” But the collapse was symmetrical. “There was a large tank of diesel in the building,” Fetzer said, “but diesel burns at a low temperature and diesel is not explosive. It cannot have brought about this collapse.”
Anyone who has watched the building come down appreciates that it has all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11,” Fetzer said. “None of these fires burned long enough or hot enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt. It must be embarrassing for the scientists at the NIST to defend these ridiculous theories.”
Lindgren, who has extensive experience with press releases, added, “Friday afternoon is the best time of the week for the government to bury unpleasant news. Since NIST insists it has found ‘no evidence’ of a controlled demolition, it must not consider the videos of WCT-7’s collapse as ‘evidence,’ because they leave no room for doubt. The fires in Building 7 provide a good cover story to hide the fact that powerful explosives brought it down.” He is also not impressed with Giuliani’s excuse for not going to his command center, which is that another plane could have been headed for it. “But if another plane was headed toward the World Trade Center, then he should have directed that the firemen be removed from all the buildings, which he did not do.” (See http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/en y.jsp?en y=rudolf_(_rudy_)_giuliani ).
There were other oddities related to WTC-7, including Larry Silverstein reporting (during a PBS interview) that he had suggested to the fire commander that the best thing to do might be to “pull it” (where, he said, “They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building come down”) and the BBC broadcast of a report of the collapse of “the Solomon Brothers Building” at least 23 minutes before the event would actually occur. “This was stunning,” Fetzer said, “because you could see WTC-7 in the background over her left shoulder as she reported its collapse. It is hard to imagine a more revealing demonstration of the entanglement of the intelligence agencies, the administration, and the mass media. And a ‘terrorism drill’ was scheduled for the next day.” The PBS interview and the BBC report are archived on the Scholars site at 911scholars.org.
“If Rosie O’Donnell had talked about ‘blast events initiating the collapse of WTC-7”, Fetzer said, “she would have been labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ But then the official government account of 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airlines, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world to perpetrate these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan is only the most ‘outrageous’ conspiracy theory of them all. I guess we should be grateful that NIST is moving inch by inch toward a more adequate explanation of what actually happened on 9/11, which bears no relationship at all to what we have been told. Given the ulative evidence, we are not ‘conspiracy theorists’ but ‘conspiracy realists.’”
WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony Transcribed by Rolf Lindgren (edited for clarity with notes)
Sources: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007...rT/0619071.mp3
http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007...rT/0619072.mp3
[Start of transcript]
“I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management [OEM] at the World Trade Center 7, on the 23rd floor.
[This was immediately after the North Tower was struck. OEM is also know as Rudy’s Bunker.]
As I arrived there, there were police all over the lobby.
They showed me the way to the elevator; we got up to the 23rd floor.
We couldn’t get in; we had to go back down. [The witness was with another person.]
Then security and police took us to the freight elevators where they took us back up and we did get in.
Upon arriving into the OEMEOC [OEM Emergency Operating Center], we noticed that everybody was gone.
[The witness’s voice inflection indicates elevated surprise. It seems he has arrived before the official evacuation time of 9:30 AM]
I saw coffee that was on the desks still, the smoke was still coming off the coffee.
I saw half-eaten sandwiches.
And after I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and to leave right away.
[Could indicate foreknowledge]
I came running back in.
He said we’re the only ones up here.
We gotta get out of here. He found the stairwell.
So we subsequently went to the stairwell and we’re going down the stairs.
When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way.
[The witness’s timeline places this event well before the collapse of either Twin Tower.]
I was left there hanging.
I had to climb back up, and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor.
After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark.”
[However, according to FEMA maps, none of the South Tower debris, excepting dust clouds, reached Building 7. (Source: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf, esp. p. 9). The North Tower did not collapse until 10:28 A.M., far too late to fit into the witness’ timeline.]
“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there.
When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”
[The above two paragraphs were obtained from another source not listed above. For this source, please contact the Scholars.]
….
“Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only, why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that.
I know what I heard; I heard explosions.
The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.
When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed.
It looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it.
And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was.
And it was so destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall.
A makeshift hole that I believe that the fire department made to get me out.”
[The damage to the lobby may have been related to the earlier explosion or possibly be related to the destruction of the North Tower, a point that will be resolved when the entire tape is released.]
….
“And it wasn’t until some years later that I testified in front of them [9/11 Commission or NIST].
It was very scary because they looked like very important people; they were questioning me about certain things.
I don’t know if they liked the answers I gave, I could care less, I gave what, my account of it, the truth, and that was that.
I thought they were just doing an interim report or investigation on as to what happened. They got my point of view.
I haven’t heard any more from them.”
[End of transcript]
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...=113&Itemid=67
NIST Misrepresents Testimony Regarding Explosion in WTC 7 Stairwell
More Proof Key WTC 7 Witness is Telling the Truth
By Galileo Galilei
The National Ins ute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has misrepresented the testimony of a witness who heard and felt an explosion inside of WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, in an attempt to cover up arson.
The witness, who has asked not to be identified by name until this fall, testified:
“When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way.”
Witness testimony transcribed:
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...=113&Itemid=67
The witness was also seen on TV on the day of 9/11, saying; “Big Explosion. It blew us back into the 8th floor.”
Since the fire alarm system in WTC 7 had been turned off at 6:47 A.M. that morning, we don’t know the exact time of the explosion; but the witness specifically stated that the explosion occurred before either Twin Tower collapse, when he said:
“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”
Galileo Galilei, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, analyzed NIST reports regarding this event.
He says:
“This explosion was not caused by debris from the collapse of either tower because the locations of both stairwells inside of WTC 7 were not in the area of debris damage, according to NIST diagrams.”
“Both stairwells were along the north edge of the WTC 7 core in the north half of the building, but all the debris damage hit the south face of WTC 7. WTC 7 was 355 feet from the North Tower, at its closest point, with WTC 6 in between.”
“Also, core columns # 74 and # 75 would have blocked the advance of any debris that might have been headed for the stairwell closest to the area where possible debris damage may have occurred.”
Sources:
Location of WTC 7 stairwells: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf (page L-6)
Location of WTC 7 debris damage: (page L-22)
Fire Alarm turned off: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/a647alarmnoton
Yet NIST omits the word “explosion” and writes that the collapse of WTC 1 caused the events described by the witness:
“The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.”
Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf (page 109 of report)
The footnote for this source is #381:WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704, spring 2004.
This refers to our witness above and the other witness is Mike Hess, who was the NYC corporation counsel and a close associate of Rudy Giuliani.
Dr. Kevin Barrett of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth attempted to contact Mr. Hess regarding this incident:
“I called Michael Hess's office Wednesday, June 27th and left a message for him to return the call. A secretary/co-worker from his office (female) called back the next morning, Thursday June 28th. She asked what I wanted to speak to him about. I started to explain the reports about Hess and the other witness in WTC-7. She interrupted me by saying; "Believe me, I know about that". She said Hess wasn't available to speak to me and she didn't know when he would be. I asked her to leave him the message that I'd like to talk with him.”
As of this writing, Dr. Barrett has not heard back from Mr. Hess.
“It looks like Mike Hess and NIST have a WTC 7 problem.”
Galileo says:
“This analysis effectively refutes objections raised on the JREF forums.”
JREF analysis: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85234
“The JREF people are the most intelligent and best informed critics of the 9/11 Truth movement. Unlike Popular Mechanics, Fox News, and the Screw Loose Change blog, JREF raises critical issues regarding the truth about really happened on the fateful day of 9/11. No member of the 9/11 Truth movement should accept their own arguments as true, without a careful study of the counter-arguments raised by JREF.”
The Scholars for 9/11 Truth call on NIST scientists to recognize that the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally and the collapse of the building was an obvious controlled demolition.
Watch WTC 7 fall down:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21899003&hl=en
Map of WTC building locations:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf
I hope you all go to the link provided by Galileo and read the press release in its entirety.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html
Here is the entirety of the language from which this latest conspiracy is drawn:
Looks to me like they're engaging in the exercise so they can rule out explosives and shut the ing nutters up.
Once they determine the theoretical magnitude of such blasts, they'll quickly discount their existence by showing none of the physical evidence supports such blasts ever occurring on September 11, 2001.
Too bad it won't work. The nutters will only accuse the NIST of covering up the truth.
It was a short press release Galileo, how come it's taken almost 4 months for you guys to misconstrue a single sentence near the end of the release?
Wow!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
