Were the WTC towers demolished with explosives?

[Carefulplease]

Experts in controlled demolition think not.

Brent Blanchard it Senior Editor for http://www.implosionworld.com/

He wrote the article liked below with the help of several Protec employees.
http://www.protecservices.com/

Here is the article:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Comments and rational criticism are welcomed.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. JOTS!

Holy f*cking sh*t!

:bounce:

[salvorhardin]

2. I've just been scanning the article

This is terrific. It's also explained in simple, non-technical language.

On edit: I do wish it had been footnoted or at least contained a list of references to other sources, if only to learn more.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

5. Yes, the article is full of idiotic nonsense

like the website it's posted on. For example:

"All this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between the plane impact and collapse. . . . Which is impossible" (page 4).

Uh, no kidding. All the usual red herrings, which for some reason I can't select and copy. No matter, it's hardly worth the effort.

[tabatha]

6. planting of explosives

I read somewhere that demolition explosives were placed in the buildings at the time of construction - how true this is, I don't know - but it would certainly explain why "they decided to take WTC7 down" because it was damaged. Actually, all of the tall buildings were "pulled" because that was the cheapest way to get rid of these larger older buildings. All of the WTC buidlings have been removed now - but the smaller ones were cheaper to do without demolition. I guess the WTC buildings were too old and had too many problems meeting tougher environmental standards. The owner took out insurance on the WTC buildings in case of a terrorist attack, before September 11.

9/11 was the cheapest way to demolish the buildings - especially as the cutter explosives cut the steel into manageable lengths - the beams did not have to be cut manually using acetylene torches. I don't see how the steel beams could have been cut into neat consistent lengths if they had simply melted and buckled.

[Carefulplease]

7. Two things...

You did not read the article, did you?

1) The steel columns did not melt.

2) They failed mostly at the splices. That was the weakest point. Hence the "neat consistent lengths" (Some also buckled)

[wildbilln864]

9. then pray tell please explain...

how come every other building in history was able to remain standing after much hotter fires that burned many times as long and on many more levels in some cases.
Could ya, should ya, would ya please?

[Jazz2006]

10. Gee, maybe because

they didn't have 767s slammed into them to precipitate the events that followed.

[wildbilln864]

12. Oh...

I guess that explains WTC 7 perfectly!
W.A.M.!

BTW, which plane was it?

[Jazz2006]

14. Not sure who you think you're fooling.

Obviously, no airplane hit WTC7 (although airplane parts may well have) and certainly WTC7 suffered structural damage and fires as a result of the collapse of WTC1. Nobody but the hard of reasoning could believe that that does not equate to the airplane impacts precipitating the events that followed.

[wildbilln864]

23. I don't know who you think ...

you're fooling Jazz. I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm trying to understand. WTC 6 was between 1 and 7! Do you have any pictures of said structural damage?

[Jazz2006]

35. Controlled demo experts say that the buildings were not brought down by

controlled demolitions.

That's the subject matter of the thread.

Your strange attempts to make it be about something else are... well, strange.

Not surprising, but still strange.

What on earth you think WTC6 has to do the subject matter of this particular thread is probably best discussed on another thread ~ feel free to start one ~ or to join one of the many that already exist, and I'll be happy to respond to you there.

But I think this particular thread deserves its own focus and deserves not to be sidetracked by people spouting off about WTC6, misinterpretations of Van Romero's words, and concomitant pretended outrage.

If you want to talk about those other issues, let's do so on threads that are about those other issues rather than engaging in thread hijacking behaviour here, deal?

Edit for grammatical clarity.

[petgoat]

57. What WTC6 has to do the subject matter

Read bill's post. WTC6 stood between WTC1 and WTC7. There are
plenty of photos of WTC6 structural damage. There are none showing significant damage to WTC7.

[wildbilln864]

59. Thank you petgoat 4...

taking the time to spell this out to them. I wasn't going to bother.If they couldn't grasp that simple fact, then what's the use?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

67. None showing significant damage.

You can interpret the pink shot as the entire corner missing under
floor 14 if you want, but the missing corner can just as easily be
interpreted as merely obscured by smoke.

No missing corner is shown in the shot showing the street between
WTC7 and the Verizon Building.

Chief Hayden claims they put a transit on the SW corner to shoot a
bulge between 10 and 13. But he doesn't mention the missing corner.
And apparently nobody on the ground bothered to take a picture of it,
or to mention it in their oral histories or mention it to Fire
Engineering Magazine.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ka hrnt]

83. You are wrong!

This is obviously the impact site of The Fat Man I mentioned above. Stop being a pawn of the Shadow Government.

:silly:

[Carefulplease]

84. I might well be...

I did not take any stance as to the cause of the damage. It could be some that Fat Man or Little Boy device were reponsible. However, if that is your thesis, Jim Hoffamn's pyroclastic-fart theory should have precedence.

[Ka hrnt]

102. Of course!

"...Jim Hoffamn's pyroclastic-fart theory should have precedence."

A fellow truth seeker! Where do I find this man? Together we'll get to the bottom of this. Was it chili? Burritos? BOTH? (Those monsters!) The truth is out there!

[greyl]

97. Your post is misleading. Here's just one of the pics again:

Pic is from http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf which Careful supplied.
The reason for the deletions above were regarding a site linked to for the photo evidence that goes against this particular CT argument, not because Careful wasn't civil.

The meme that "WTC7 wasn't heavily damaged" needs to be put to rest.

[petgoat]

101. Why was this photo a secret for 5-1/2 years?

Why did no witness testify to the fact that the corner
was damaged?

Why did Deputy Chief Hayden claim there was a bulge at the corner
from 10 to 13 when there was no corner from 1O to 13?

Why did NIST not mention this?

Why did other photographers at the same scene take
horizontally-oriented shots to missed the missing corner?

Why didn't somebody go closer to the corner for a better shot?

This investgation is really fucked up. What is this, Soviet
Russia?

[Jazz2006]

104. Because *they* were saving it to post a 'gotcha' at DU years later,

of course.

Edit to add: p.s. take a look at the date on which the linked paper was written. It's not true to say that it was "hidden", let alone for "five and a half years". It was published more than two years ago.

Oh, and take a peek at a calendar, too. Five and a half years have not yet elapsed since Sept. 11/01.

[Make7]

106. Well, someone almost let the cat out of the bag back in June 2004.

boloboffin wrote on Jun-20-04:

...

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

It's 5 MG for that download, but it's got some great pictures of WTC 7 that you've never seen before.

Fortunately he didn't actually post the picture in question. Otherwise the secret really would have been out.

Shhh! Don't tell anyone.

- Make7

[petgoat]

107. You're focussing on the least interesting question: When was it released?

It wasn't in the draft 2004 report I saw.

How come nobody testified to it? How come other photographers didn't
photograph it? How come nobody went for a closer look? How could
Chief Hayden have put a transit on the corner if there was no
corner? How come FEMA didn't mention it?

[Make7]

108. According to www.archive.org..

... the report with that picture was on the NIST website on or before June 22, 2004. Check it out, it's in Appendix L of the June 2004 Progress Report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/">http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wtc.nist.gov/

- Make7

[greyl]

109. Why haven't so called "9/11 truth seekers" found it?

Why isn't it common knowledge among the so called 9/11 Truth movement?
Why is it that when evidence for the so called "Official Story" is presented to CTers they turn a blind eye?

[petgoat]

112. Ummm, excuse me

It's evidence for the official story only if you suppose that
it's indicative of other structural damage that is corroborated
only by wildly inconsistent reports.

If there is not other structural damage, then such piddly damage can
not be expected to cause a collapse, and if it did, it certainly
wouldn't be symmetrical.

Even if the photo was "published" in 2004, it was still secret for
almost three years.

And you're still focussing on the least interesting question,
just trying to play gotcha instead of pursuing truth.

[salvorhardin]

114. How can it be "secret" if it's on a publicly available website?

If archive.org picked it up, it was a publicly available website.

[Jazz2006]

115. It wasn't a secret. The CTers just weren't looking.

But they rarely do look for facts or evidence, especially when facts and evidence don't support their conspiracy theories, of course.

Much like the CTer hero, Jones, who doesn't look for evidence anywhere, conducts no actual experiments, pretends to do so without any legitimate basis, and just spouts off nonsense while ignoring the actual evidence.

CTers in general do the same thing; i.e. they just ignore reality and pretend that the actual evidence doesn't exist.

It seems they don't actually talk to people who have evidence to share, don't actually conduct interviews with people who might have relevant information, don't bother to make a single telephone call to someone who might have relevant information. But, oh, they can come up with a hundred questions even though they've never bothered to talk to a single person about reality.

It seems obvious that their real purpose has always been to sell dvds and tee shirts. They've done a good job of that. Mostly while pretending to be honouring the people who died that day.

How disgusting is that?

[salvorhardin]

116. What? You mean calling a receptionist isn't truth seeking?

:rofl: :evilgrin:

[petgoat]

117. It was certainly secret to FEMA, who apparently found no plausible

evidence of structural damage when they released their report in
2002. If it was published in 6/04, that means it was secret for
almost three years.

I never saw it, and a google search doesn't turn it up either.

edit: oops, said NIST, meant FEMA

[salvorhardin]

119. Here's a clue

Google doesn't index everything or even everything properly.

And just because you haven't seen it, still doesn't make it secret.

Finally, just because it wasn't published until 2004 still doesn't mean it was secret. It merely means it was unpublished. I have a photo of a former girlfriend sitting on my desk but you won't find it on the web. Not because it's secret, but because it's unpublished. Similarly, there's content sitting on my website that you can't see right now. It's just unpublished.

[petgoat]

120. Unavailable to FEMA = secret. Your photos, no comment. nt

[salvorhardin]

125. That makes no sense. n/t

[Make7]

121. a google search doesn't turn it up?

Google

1st page, 10th image

- Make7

[petgoat]

118. dupe delete nt

[Jazz2006]

111. Yes, but don't tell the CTers... they still don't know it exists....

It's a *secret* that they haven't caught on to for more than two years.

The super-duper-double-secret commission would like to keep it that way for another couple of years since it knows that CTers don't actually read factual reports about the evidence, and don't actually check out the links to evidence that are posted here by non CTers, even though they pretend a lot.

So.......... shhhhhhhh.

[emcguffie]

99. Both towers ofthe WTC were designed to withstand the impact--

-- of the biggest jumbo jet of that period. And probably bigger, because I imagine the architects realized they would only get bigger.

That is precisely the problem with having those buildings fall down as they did. They were built much too well. They built them to have planes fly into them, and not to fall down.

[Carefulplease]

105. They were indeed so designed howerver...

See messages #15 and #27 from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106138&mesg_id=106138

[John Q. Citizen]

50. One interesting item I just read as I go through this

"tear down the straw men" style article is that item #2 on page #7 says that if there were melted steel in the debris pile "the heat would quickly transfer through the steel components in the excavator and there would be concern for it's operator."

This seems to confirm the 'heat sink" hypothesis of Dr. Jones (as well as my cook ware) :) which has been debated on other threads in this forum. The paragraph then goes on to say that the photos {the authors} reviewed on various web sites do not support (to paraphrase)' the melted steel in the debris pile hypothesis.

'Which pictures from which web sites?'

So there you have it. According to the authors of this article, heat transfers quickly through steel.

Then in paragraph 4 of the same page, the authors contend that "No demolition personnel at any level noticed the tell tale degenerative "fingerprint" of thermate on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

I have two questions about this.

1. Do the authors contend that they went back and spoke with every single demolition worker at the site after the 3 or 4 year interval since the site was cleared and asked them about thermate's finger print?

2. FEMA found, documented, and photographed thermate's degenerative finger print, the sulphidation of steel beams and the corrosion that resembles a thermate reaction. Are the authors unaware of this, or are they covering their ass by their assertion in the opening paragraph they they won't address anything in the FEMA report? http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Anyway, some food for thought. I'm going to keep reading but i will say that the style of the article and the lack of any documentation to back up their assertions (except that they claim to be experts and we should believe them) is neither scientific nor particularly convincing. For example they make claims attributed to anonymous people. I don't trust that in this case anymore than with Killtown. The same standard should be applied equally across the board. Also, the authors never say that they looked for any evidence during their companies involvement with the removal process of debris that would confirm or deny the use of explosive or thermitic reactions.


(edit for spelling and clarity)

[Carefulplease]

56. Good point.

(...) item #2 on page #7 says that if there were melted steel in the debris pile "the heat would quickly transfer through the steel components in the excavator and there would be concern for it's operator."

This seems to confirm the 'heat sink" hypothesis of Dr. Jones (as well as my cook ware) which has been debated on other threads in this forum.

This is an error that vitiates this particular argument of the article. Congratulation for spotting it. So, either Jones, the author of this article, and yourself were in error on this point, or the Fourier heat equation and/or the widely referenced heat conductivity coefficient of steel are in error.

My guess is that the author of this article (and Jones and yourself) have been lousy in this matter.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. So it's your guess that the editor of Implosion World

and his bud from Protek are in error about something as basic as the ability of steel to transfer heat?

That seems like a very basic and necessary piece of knowledge if one were in the controlled demolition and steel documentation business. It is obviously not a typo, because they used it as a "proof" to prop up #2 assertion on page 7.

We know from the FEMA evidence that there was in fact melted steel found in the wreckage, because appendix 3 clearly shows evidence of melted steel.

You describe these guys as "Experts." I'm not so sure if your characterization is correct or not, but I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't have at least a rudamentary knowledge of steel's ability to transfer heat.

If your guess is correct, then these guys obviously aren't "experts." If your guess is wrong, then Dr. Jones heat sink hypothesis may in fact be correct.

I'm afraid we can't have it both ways, Careful Please.

[Carefulplease]

73. Yes this is a mistake.

It is sad that Blanchard made that mistake and that it wasn't spotted. It is sad that Jones (and Wood) made a similar mistake and that none of their st911 fellow Scholars pointed it out to them. So we can reject both Blanchard and Jones particular arguments which rest on that mistake. I am not trying to have it both ways. Are you?

The FEMA report does not present evidence of melted steel. I've been discussing this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105517&mesg_id=105517

And here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105517&mesg_id=105631

[Jazz2006]

11. Do you really believe that? WTC7 was all of 14 years old,

and had zero asbestos in it.

Do you actually believe that the hundreds of people involved in the construction of that building and the other buildings at the World Trade Center would plant explosives during the construction, given the obvious risk that would entail to their own lives during construction?

Seriously?

[salvorhardin]

18. Would explosives even remain viable all this time?

Wouldn't the chemicals degrade over time?

[Jazz2006]

20. Doubtful.

One would think that in the case of the towers, any pre-planted explosives would have degraded over the 30+ years that they'd been sitting there and been rendered inoperable or they would have exploded accidently in the intervening 30+ years.

Similarly, one would think that in the case of WTC7, any pre-planted explosives would have degraded over the 14 years they'd been sitting there and been rendered inoperable or they would have exploded accidentally in the intervening years.

But, frankly, the suggestion that explosives were built into the construction of the buildings at all is so ludicrous and laughable that it seems wrong to lend any credence to this particular tinhat theory at all.

[salvorhardin]

22. I agree

I was just pointing out that the idea is not only infeasible, but would not even be viable.

[Jazz2006]

24. Agreed.

Perhaps a CTer can come up with some kind of plausible evidence refuting that, but I sincerely doubt it.

[Make7]

15. ... or have been performed completely undetected, in advance...

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 buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.

This is impossible.

[Jazz2006]

16. Tsk tsk. More selective quote mining by the CT brigade.

What a surprise.

[dailykoff]

54. All quotations are selective. (n/t)

[John Q. Citizen]

68. That's a fact. A glaringly obvious fact in fact. n/t

[Make7]

72. .

[greyl]

74. Post 16 is technically redundant, while yours is ignorant. Quote Mining:

Argument from Quotation is an informal logical fallacy, a variation on argument from authority, where a participant presents a purported quotation from an acknowledged expert in support of his view, but the quotation does not actually support his view. In some cases, the quote may be presented misleadingly, for example, out of contexts, and in more pernicious cases may simply never have existed. This reviled practice is sometimes called "quote-mining."

This is a fallacy because the quotation presented does not accurately represent the beliefs of the expert. Even if the quotation did represent the beliefs of the expert, it would still be a fallacious argument from authority. Despite this, arguments from quotation are commonly found, especially in the creationist literature.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Quotation

Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word. The term is used pejoratively to accuse the "quote miner" of cherry picking and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.

The expression is also sometimes used in a slightly weaker sense, merely meaning that a quote is being used to support an idea that the original author rejects. In this second case, even a quote which is accurate can be considered a mined quote.
http://www.answers.com/topic/quote-mining

"Quote-mining" is a term much used in the talk.origins newsgroup. It refers to the Creationist practice of extracting (mining) quotations from their proper context so as to make the quoted-mined person appear to be saying something very different than what he really did say...
...The practice of quote-mining is roundly despised for its inherent dishonesty, and is one more reason that real scientists tend to view Creationists as intellectually dishonest.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Quote-mining

We have discussed "quote mining" several times, which is when truthers take a quote and grab part of it in order to support their assertions, ignoring any part which would contradict their beliefs.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/evidence-mining.html

The statement, "Dr. Van Romero said the WTC Tower's collapse looked liked controlled demolition" is a text book example of quote mining, aka cherrypicking, and argument from quotation.

-Why do people quote mine?
-Intellectual dishonesty and Confirmation Bias

[dailykoff]

76. I see you've never written a research paper.

Shame.

[Make7]

77. .

[Jazz2006]

93. You haven't a clue, really, do you?

Shame.

[petgoat]

80. Dr. Van Romero said it looked just like controlled demolition.

The fact that he no longer professes that it was controlled
demolition has nothing to do with the fact that it looked
to him, a controlled demolition expert, like a controlled
demolition. He has never recanted that statement.

You guys can't possibly be too obtuse to understand this.

[Jazz2006]

90. You're right, it was technically redundant since it

included the word "selective".

Quote mining is quote mining, and there was no need for the word "selective".

But it's a lesser sin to include a redundant word than to be wholly ignorant about a common term such as was exhibited by the poster to whom you responded.

[greyl]

92. And, in turn, you are correct. :) nt

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

126. .

[John Q. Citizen]

51. The contention in the the "Implosion World" article that "several

people" reported explosions appears to be a bit ingenuious.

Many many people reported explosions. They were caught on tape, they were felt, they were seen.

Maybe all those people were mistaken but I doubt it.

Thanks for the link, Tabitha, that's truely a remarkable movie. I'm about half way through it (on pause) and it leaves little doubt that we are being lied to.

[dailykoff]

4. Yes, obviously.

Next question?

[wildbilln864]

8. Thank you!

Thank you!

[Jazz2006]

13. It's good to see demolition experts speaking up

It has been obvious for a long time that the collapse of the twin towers has never looked anything like controlled demolitions.

It is also good to see them put to bed the oft-repeated nonsense that "pull it" is an industry term for controlled demolition.

The debunking911 site is excellent. Thanks, carefulplease.

[petgoat]

17. You don't know what you're talking about.

According to Dr. Van Romero, the collapses looked exactly
like a controlled demolition. He never retracted that statement,
because it's undeniably true.

[salvorhardin]

19. More mistruths from 9-11 Truthers

petgoat said...

He never retracted that statement, because it's undeniably true.

Van Romero says...

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Individuals_questioning_aspects_of_the_collapse

[petgoat]

25. Dr. Van Romero never retracted the statement that the collapse looked

just like controlled demolition. His opinion that fire caused the
building to fall takes nothing away from the unretracted statement.

Why do you have a problem understanding that?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. You're selectively quoting Van Romero in order to mislead people about

what he thinks happened on 9/11.

Why do you do that?

[petgoat]

29. I am not misleading anyone. Dr. Romero said the collapse looked

just like controlled demolition. He never retracted
the statement because it's true.

That he changed his opinion from "fire could not have caused
the collapse" to "fire did cause the collapse" does not change
the fact that the collapse looked just like controlled
demolition.

Why do you have a problem understanding this?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

38. What exactly is my alleged problem? nt

[Jazz2006]

45. You have to ask?

Your problems with reality are obvious to any rational reader with the barest modicum of reseach skills.

[petgoat]

47. I'm asking for specifics.

I don't imagine your style goes over in court real well.

"Your honor, the damages my client has suffered are
simply obvious to any neutral observer."

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

94. Fortunately,

I don't often have to point out to the court the obvious about CTers; the court gets it all on its own.

[petgoat]

98. I don't often have to point out to the court the obvious about CTers

I can see you in criminal defense now:

"Your honor, the prosecutor's tinfoil is slipping,
and he has faulty reasoning skills, and he knows it!
His claim that a bagman, a triggerman, and a driver
conspired to rob a liquor store is by its nature a
conspiracy theory, and we all know conspiracies
are impossible because they're too complicated and
someone would talk."

[Grateful for Hope]

100. LOL!! n/t

[Jazz2006]

103. *you* might try on an argument like that

being a CTer, but I certainly wouldn't.

You badly and sadly underestimate those of us who apply critical and rational thinking skills without the use of tin foil.

[Ka hrnt]

78. Don't you love this?

Just like in that other thread. They don't care what the expert thinks actually happened, only that the expert stated it "looked" like CD. Somehow, that's more important than the fact that the experts' opinion is that it was NOT CD. It boggles the mind.

[petgoat]

79. Why does that boggle the mind?

It's only rational to separate the components. It's called
analysis.

Dr. Romero said a) it looked just like controlled demolition,
b) he didn't think fire could have brought the towers down,
c) relatively small amounts of explosives could do the job,
and d) that a two stage terrorist attack is a common tactic to
target the rescue workers who have been attracted to the site.

Later he said he'd changed his mind and he thought fire did
bring the buldings down.

So he said A, B, C, and D, and because he retracted
B there's something dishonest in citing A, C, and D?

[Ka hrnt]

81. That's rational? Yikes.

Let's see...he originally states it looked and could have been done with explosives. After further analysis he states explosives didn't cause the collapse. So you latch onto the quotes about what "here's what could" have happened and ignore the "on further review, here's what really happened" parts. You know, it could have been that a really large person with bad gas happened to let one go on the ~90th floor, and when the flames got up there that methane EXPLODED, causing the collapse. The explosion catapulted him OUT of the first tower and into the second. Later, after waking up, he had a sort of "morning gas" and let another go in the second tower, as evidenced below. (Mass media's attempt at covering this up evidenced in bottom of picture. This fireballs' color is PROOF that this is methane exploding, not jet fuel.) Later, after suriving the fall because a counter-vacuum (as clearly heard on 9/11 Eyewitness) pushed him up and slowed his rate of fall, he rolled into WTC7 and pushed it slightly off its foundation, causing it too to collapse.

That has about as much veracity as 99% of other claims I've seen here. That's my new theory as to what really happened, and no amount of scientific analysis, common sense, or factual evidence will change my mind. Anyone who disagrees is an agent of COINTELPRO, spreading disinfo in an attempt to prevent myself and other truth-seekers from identifying the government agent who was fed chili and instructed to cut ass on the 90th floor.

Evidence of massive methane (CH4) explosion, disproving second plane hit WTC:

WHO'S WITH ME!??!?!?!

[petgoat]

85. You are mischaracterizing the statements.

he originally states it looked and could have been done with explosives. After further analysis he states explosives didn't
cause the collapse.

He said it looked just like a controlled demolition, and could
have been done with a relatively small amount of explosives.


So you latch onto the quotes about what "here's what could" have
happened and ignore the "on further review, here's what really
happened" parts.

Not at all. I retain the fact that he said it looks just like
a controlled demolition, i.e., symmetrical collapse with no apparent
resistance by the structure. If I look like a basketball, the
fact that I'm not doesn't change the fact that I look like one.
That to an expert in controlled demolition the collapse looked
just like a controlled demolition is a significant fact.

[Carefulplease]

86. I agree with you...

...up to a point.

It seemed to Van Romero that the collapse looked like what could be accomplished with a small amount of explosives. Any I+F (impact+fire) theorist can agree with that. Indeed, they posit that *no* explosives are needed. If none are needed, then a small amount is certainly enough!

Van Romero couldn't figure out, at first, how the structure could be brought to fail in the way it did. He couldn't figure out the mechanism of collapse initiation. He talked to structural engineers and then he understood. He became an I+F theorist.

Of course, the phase of collapse progression looks like a controlled demolition, in many respects(*). That's because collapse progression is gravity driven whether or not explosives are the initiating factor. Van Romero knows this. Blanchard knows this also. Every explosive demolition expert knows that, it seems.

(*)(Although it looks like a lousy CD, with the tops tilting and rotating, and huge wall segments fanning out and dropping all over the place; and although the failures were initiated way up rather than at ground level)

Most WTC-CD-theorists do not know that. People like Wood, Jones, Ross, Griffin, Hoffman, etc. do *not* believe those collapses looked like ordinary explosive demolitions. They do not believe these could be gravity driven collapses initiated with little explosives and proceeding under the mere influence of gravity. They all seem to believe that huge amounts of explosives (or explosives + thermate, or super microwave beams) are required to produce effects that experts know can be produced with few explosives.

These theorists believe that purely gravity driven collapses (or ordinary CDs) can not look like that. Experts think otherwise.

[salvorhardin]

34. More mistruths from 9-11 Truthers

petgoat said...

Dr. Van Romero never retracted the statement that the collapse looked just like controlled demolition.

ABQJournal said (via WTC7.net)

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Sorry I can't link to the primary source and have to link to a conspiracist website, but Romero most assuredly did retract his earlier statement. Why can't you understand that?

[petgoat]

36. Dr. Romero did not retract his statement that the collapse looked like CD.

Think of it this way:

An art expert says a painting "looks just like a genuine Picasso".
He later determines, based on chemical analysis of the paint, that it's a recent forgery.

That does not change the fact that it "looks just like" it's genuine.

I'm sorry you're logically challenged but that's the way it is.

It looked just like a CD. Dr. Van Romero said so.

[Jazz2006]

44. Your analogy skills are still at kindergarten level, goat.

As always.

[mirandapriestly]

40. Van Romero's initial statement

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

And Romero should know. After all Van is a demolition expert and a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

http://www.abqjournal.com:80/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm


His laboratory received a large defense grant, and he went to Washington after he made the initial statement. IT IS VERY OBVIOUS what happened there, people aren't willing to lose their livelihoods, or worse, most of the time.

More "retractions" here, including one by Mark Louiseaux Of Controlled Demolitons, Inc.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html
The most noted example is the retraction by explosives expert Van Romero who was quoted on the day of the attack saying the collapses were "too methodical" to be the result of the aircraft collisions and ensuing fires.

[Jazz2006]

21. No, it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Van Romero does not agree with you, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

But, you know that.

[petgoat]

27. Dr. Romero agrees with himself: it looked like controlled demolition.

When a freeper tells me "you know that" I know they're
telling a lie, even if they don't.

[Jazz2006]

28. I'm a "freeper"?

Hardly.

One of us might be, but it isn't me.

And, to paraphrase you, when a supposed Democrat calls me a freeper, I know that they're telling a lie, and I know that they know it, too.

[petgoat]

30. Stop spamming about yourself. Go to DU Lounge. nt

[Jazz2006]

32. You're the one throwing the freeper label around, goat, to anyone

who doesn't agree with your tinhat theories and the tales you spin.

Don't blame me for responding to your lame posts. You could just stop making them and thus slow the tide of responses to them.

The only "spam" here is your own posts.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

55. if it walks like a duck...

[Jazz2006]

124. You may be right.... the goat does walk like a duck....

but far be it from me to draw any more conclusions from that.

[Jazz2006]

33. CTers have cited the implosionworld website repeatedly as

"proof" of their CT theories in the past (even though it was obvious that actual controlled demolitions look NOTHING like the collapses of the twin towers), so it's even more hilarious to watch CTers now try to distance themselves from the experts at implosion world when those experts take their "controlled demolition" arguments apart.


You couldn't make this stuff up!

[petgoat]

37. You can make this stuff up. I never heard of implosionworld

until careful cited it.

Please link some CT'er citing implosionworld.

[mirandapriestly]

39. I did a DU search and it only shows up

a few times and people only link to it for the pictures, not the quotes.

[Jazz2006]

43. You have search capability - go look it up....

CTers have cited it repeatedly in this very forum.

Nice try, goat.

[mirandapriestly]

41. I think thermite is used by the military more than demolition

companies. They use more traaditional explosives. Since those have "tracers" or tags, the wtc crew would have wanted to use something that did not leave any evidence that could be explained away.

[KJF]

46. Good point with the tags

I'll just go off and whip myself for not thinking of it earlier.

[KJF]

42. A point or two

Blanchard says that:
"Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure" (p. 4)
As far as I can make out he appears to be suggesting that it would not be possible to simply destroy the core, which carried 50% of the building's gravity load; i.e. he's saying even if the core was destroyed the building would still stand (or maybe fall differently?), which is a bit much to swallow. If you ask me, destruction of the core would lead to destruction of the building.

And:
"In order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see 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." (p. 4)
Well, you'd probably have to do that to get at the perimeter columns, but some of the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts. NIST says:
"Columns located at the elevator shafts were protected using the same SFRM thicknesses. They were not enclosed and thus were accessible for routine inspections." (p. 73 of the main report)

Also, his Assertion 1 is:
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions".
I guess you could probably find a fringe website or two that said this, but the argument usually put forward is that WTC 7 looks exactly like an explosive demolition. For example, 911research says, "The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 shows all of the features of an implosion engineered through controlled demolition."
Link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
When talking about the Twin Towers, David Ray Griffin, for example, usually limits himself to something like "the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used."
Link: http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
So I think Assertion 1 is a bit of a straw man.

Anyway, thanks for posting it - it was an interesting read and it's nice to see a reaction from them finally. The best bit was probably about the steel not being shipped. It'll be interesting to see where that leads.

[petgoat]

48. Thanks for your patient reading, Kevn.

I'm afraid I just skim the stuff and go "horseshit! Horseshit!" and
leave it at that.

[mirandapriestly]

87. I know. He says he wasn't paid by anyone, , but I

noticed he has a few government clients and probably wants more, if you know what I mean.

[Carefulplease]

60. A point or two.

Blanchard says that:
"Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure" (p. 4)
As far as I can make out he appears to be suggesting that it would not be possible to simply destroy the core, which carried 50% of the building's gravity load; i.e. he's saying even if the core was destroyed the building would still stand (or maybe fall differently?), which is a bit much to swallow. If you ask me, destruction of the core would lead to destruction of the building.

This is a fair point against Blanchard's argument as it stands but it has some problems of its own. It begs the question against the damage+fire theorist. Blanchard like most other D+F theorists believe that the amount of explosives sufficient to produce the observed collapse is nil. A fortiori, a small amount of explosives planted in the core at the level of the impact floors would be sufficient also. It is however the CD theorists who usually claim that huge amounts of explosives are required to produce the observed effects.

Gordon Ross believes that the complete obliteration of *all* 187 core and perimeter columns of one floor would not even suffice to trigger global collapse. Hoffman believes that nothing short of the energy input of something like the multi-megaton Hiroshima bomb would produce the observed dust cloud. Judy Wood believes that the collapse would last more than 90 seconds unless most of the individual floors were blown up in advance of the arrival of the collapse wave. Griffin seems to believes that small squibs were indicative of charges located all around the perimeter. Jones, it seems, just buys uncritically into whatever Ross, Hoffman, Wood or Griffin say. There might be some CD theorist who claim that some small amount of explosives is required just to trigger the gravity driven collapse. But this would be an inconspicuous use of explosives that would be (mostly) undistinguishable from a F+D induced collapse.

When talking about the Twin Towers, David Ray Griffin, for example, usually limits himself to something like "the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used."
Link: http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
So I think Assertion 1 is a bit of a straw man.

I think not. Griffin's eleven features are:

1) Sudden Onset
2) Straight Down
3) Almost Free-Fall Speed
4) Total Collapse
5) Sliced Steel
6) Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
7) Dust Clouds
8) Horizontal Ejections
9) Demolition Rings
10) Sounds Produced by Explosions
11) Molten Steel

Blanchard addresses at least features 2,4,8,9,10,11 in some details.
Griffins features 3,4,5,8 and 9 require (according to him) explosives to be set up at most every floor. His feature 3, for instance, requires that floors be removed in advance of the arrival of the collapse front. He obviously takes 9 to be evidence of explosive charges tied to perimeter columns. So, Blanchard's argument isn't a strawman against Griffin either, given the latter's misconceptions about the expected effects of explosive demolition.

[KJF]

91. I'm going to try to stick very closely to the topic...

... and set aside some of the wider issues you raise, otherwise this post would just get too long.

(1) Where would explosives need to be? Blanchard implies they would have to be on the perimeter as well as in the core and uses this as an argument against the practically of explosive demolition. I'm saying explosives in the core would be sufficient. Do you agree with me or Blanchard?

Asides:
(1) Where did Gordon Ross say there were 187 perimeter and core columns? I must have missed that.
(2) So, there is not unity on the amount of explosives required in the CT community. There's no unity on the failure mechanism in the OCT community either. So what?

(2) Blanchard says we assert "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions". I would never say that about the Twin Towers and most of the other CTers wouldn't either. Just because Blanchard goes on to tackle some of Griffin's arguments (and I don't agree with all of them either), doesn't mean he can misrepresent us. This misrepresentation lowers the credibility of the article. It's like if we said, "The official story says that the fuel from the planes melted the steel."

[mirandapriestly]

88. Also, on the 91st floor of the north tower, which was

also the lowest floor of the "impact" there were studio's given to artists . I think there were probably many circumstances where the perimeter columns could be exposed without anyone noticing, although the core , as you said could be done without anyone noticing and Mark Louiseaux, the Controlled Demolition Inc owner said if he were to demolish the towers he would have planted explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building behind the fall . If this was done then it would explain a lot of witness accounts of basement explosions and hot spots.

[Artdyst]

52. Your post is factually incorrect. Was that intentional?

"Experts in controlled demolition think not."

You mean "some" experts. Those that claim there was a conspiracy on 9/11 & that it was organized by a senior citizen named Osama bin Laden, whose headquarters were located in a cave in Afghanistan.

Experts in common sense think the above scenario is a lie and that the Gov't is so afraid of the truth becoming known that it has withheld material evidence, manufactured evidence, employed people
to try and distort the truth (Chertoff's PMechanics propaganda piece e.g.), and has even threatened people who are in a position to gain publicity for the cause of truth ("You're either with us or with the terrorists", "Anthrax", Guantanamo (whose purpose most likely includes holding people who have information that would prove the U.S. Gov't is responsible for the 9/11 attacks).

And you expect rational people to "buy" into a propaganda web site? Maybe the usual suspects will, but not us.

[Carefulplease]

53. Is it really?

Yes I mean "some experts". I disagree that "Experts think not" means that every expert on Earth thinks not.

Have a look at some of today's CNN headlines:

"Egyptian students disappear in U.S."

All of them?

"Christians face firing squad"

All Christians do?

"Penguins die in crash, octopus unhurt"

Penguins are now extinct?

There might be some other experts on explosive demolition worldwide who believe otherwise and who have produced some arguments. Can you cite just one?

[Artdyst]

58. Just because the corporate media misleads doesn't mean you should

nt

[Carefulplease]

62. The corporate media misleads...

Are you really accusing CNN of misleading its readers into thinking all Egyptian students have disappeared in the U.S., the Penguin species went extinct today and every Christian worldwide faced firing squads?

Did anyone else read my statement as applying to *all* rather than some experts? Does anyone else found those particular CNN quotes misleading?

[Make7]

64. A few more examples:

EXPERTS CALL FOR RELEASE OF 9/11 EVIDENCE

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11

Scholars claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering.

http://www.911citizenswatch.org

Experts "Explain the Collapses"

http://911research.wtc7.net

- Make7

[Carefulplease]

61. Self delete... (moved up)

[Make7]

66. Your post is factually incorrect. Was that intentional?

Artdyst wrote:

Experts in common sense think the above scenario is a lie...

You mean "some" experts. Don't you?

- Make7

[Artdyst]

69. No, I mean ALL experts in common sense. Every single one. EOM

nt

[Make7]

70. Have you seen, read, or heard the opinions of ALL of those experts?

Have ALL experts in common sense studied the subject of 9/11 enough to render something similar the following statement?

Artdyst wrote:

Experts in common sense think the above scenario is a lie and that the Gov't is so afraid of the truth becoming known that it has withheld material evidence, manufactured evidence, employed people to try and distort the truth (Chertoff's PMechanics propaganda piece e.g.), and has even threatened people who are in a position to gain publicity for the cause of truth ("You're either with us or with the terrorists", "Anthrax", Guantanamo (whose purpose most likely includes holding people who have information that would prove the U.S. Gov't is responsible for the 9/11 attacks).

Could you provide some verifiable information that ALL experts in common sense share that basic opinion?

And to help further clarify the matter, how would you define an expert in common sense? And what are the qualifications?

Thank you,
Make7

[wildbilln864]

71. Make7...

can you agree that common sense tells us that we need a complete and independant investigation?

If so, then I understand why.
If no, please explain why.
Thank you in advance.

[greyl]

75. Red herring. Please respect the specific topic at hand. nt

[mirandapriestly]

89. For one thing you're not the moderator, and for another...

as I've pointed out before...

[greyl]

95. The topic at hand is the lack of necessity for specifying "some"

when "all" isn't implied.

The statement "Birds fly" doesn't mean "all birds fly all the time", end of story.

"For one thing you're not the moderator, and for another...as I've pointed out before...(pot calling the kettle black)

In one post, you included two ad hominem arguments with a jpeg.

[mirandapriestly]

123. You mean ad hominem like this?

greyl (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-08-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Killtown.
Edited on Tue Aug-08-06 01:04 PM by greyl
Killtown is one of the biggest pieces of shit this side of Dylan Avery. They do nothing for "9/11 Truth" except dilute it.


What does the gorilla picture mean "greyl", what does that have to do with the "topic at hand"?

[greyl]

127. No, different.

In my case:
1. I gave an opinion(premise) of a non-present entity ie "ktown is piece of shit"
2. I gave a reason(argument) for having that opinion ie "he dilutes the 9/11 truth movement"
3. I didn't try to distract from the central point of an already-in-progress-argument, I responded to an original post. I'm sure you've seen OPs that consist of some asinine statements by ann coulter, and then DUers respond by venting on her by using appropriately derogatory words? Like that.
4. I was conscious of what I was doing, and didn't need you (who aren't a moderator, btw) to point it out to me. As evidenced by my full post in context: (highlight added)



_______________________________________________________

What does the gorilla picture mean "greyl", what does that have to do with the "topic at hand"?

It takes a little sleuthing and imagination to understand, I guess.
The pic's file name is incredulous.jpg.
I'm the gorilla.

[salvorhardin]

128. But do you know what ad hominem means?

:spank: ;-)

[Artdyst]

133. No. It's only an ad hominem attack if someone disses one of THEM. nt

nt

[Jazz2006]

96. Oh my

The "poster calling herself mirandapriestly" has a new graphic that she likes to post on various and sundry threads ~ be afraid. Be very afraid.

:rofl:

[HuskerDU]

113. I wish someone would devote a thread to this post.

A reply to it is all I really want out of this entire forum.

[mirandapriestly]

122. None of the OCT will answer it or they say they don't want one

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know? And those of us who want one are called names.

[greyl]

129. Your post is shockingly dishonest and intended to mislead.

Come up with evidence that anyone here is against independent investigations of any kind.

The fact that people speak in opposition of fruadulent phone psychics, doesn't mean they are against talking on the phone.

[mirandapriestly]

130. Here is one right here. Please apologize.

Opusnone (521 posts) Wed Aug-02-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Do you support a TRUE investigation of 9-11?
Edited on Wed Aug-02-06 12:37 PM by Opusnone
Since the 9-11 Commission was lied to and followed by reporting half-truths, etc.

If there is nothing to hide, or nothing to learn then what is the harm? I'm sure with a billion dollars or so we could get to the meat of the story.
It is the defining moment of our time and has future repercussions for generations to come.

Shouldn't it be investigated like the crime it was?


Zynx (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-03-06 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #36
46. Why would I want to waste a billion dollars on that?
For the love of God, there is no evidence at all of a conspiracy.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=104591&mesg_id=104628

The lack of answers to Husker Du's questions shows the other part to support my claim.
Tell me what is a "fruadulent" phone psychic"?, speaking of shockingly dishonest. I do not believe I've seen anything about phone psychic's on this forum.
And why do you have a gorilla picture in your post you haven't answered me.

[Artdyst]

131. Answers? Maybe that's someone else's job. Don't ask me which one. EOM

nt

[greyl]

132. I remember that single example too, which is why

your other post is amazingly dishonest and misleading. One quote is not nearly sufficient reason to tell someone new to this forum that
"None of the OCT will answer it or they say they don't want one"

Your posts are fine examples of Hasty Generalizations, Poisoning the Wells, and Red Herrings.

edit: now that I think about for a few seconds more, your quote really isn't an example of someone saying they are against an independent investigation, it is against spending a billion dollars of tax payer money on an investigation, and against the idea that there is any evidence of MIHOP.
I've never heard of an independent investigation that cost a billion dollars.

[Artdyst]

134. Which debate handbook do you use? (title and author, please) Thanks.

nt

[greyl]

135. Why, do you need one? nt