Where do we presently stand on WTC demo theories?

[hack89]

My understanding of the current CD theory is:

1. High explosives were used somewhere in the towers to cut some columns.

2. Thermate was used somewhere in the towers to cut some other columns (that for some reason could not be cut by high explosives)

3. More high explosives were spread on each floor to:
- pulverize concrete floors.
- create Hoffman's pyroclastic flows

Have I missed anything?

[wildbilln864]

1. try again!

:hi:

[hack89]

2. Which one isn't true?

was it purely thermate? Or purely high explosives? What pulverized the concrete floors?

[wildbilln864]

3. Good questions, hack!

And we don't really have any answers because what we have been told is turned out false and alot was just ignored. All we can do is speculate! One thing we do know for sure is we haven't been told the truth! So why don't you join in the call for an investigation?

[hack89]

4. There has to be an investigation ..

I have always said that Bush was covering up impeachable crimes of negligence and incompetence.

[wildbilln864]

6. well, I hope it....

was just incompetence! I really do! But I don't believe it was. Either way, we need an investigation to know for sure!
Thanks!

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. We need a real criminal investigation

which BushCo has managed to avoid until now.

The biggest terrorist attack ever on US soil and the FBI has done almost nothing for over 5 years. They ID'd the hijackers, blamed it on bin Laden and that's about it.

[Athelwulf]

23. Is this to say Bush did it?

Also, are you buying into the theories?

[greyl]

29. No, I'm pretty sure he's talking about

the actual position that progressives occupy regarding the warnings of an attack that went unheeded by the Bush admin & the lies preceding the Iraq invasion, rather than the ignorant stereotype of so-called OCTers (Official Conspiracy Theorists) that is spewed by the Inside Job Cultists who have little appreciation and understanding of what skepticism, empirical evidence, logic, critical thought, and truthiness mean.

To be brief.

[Generarth]

5. In my view Hack89 and demolition

Are closely related.

But it won't work.

[hack89]

7. ??? nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. What on earth... ? n/t

[MervinFerd]

8. I don't think these theories explain the 'evidence'.

Cutting a few beams, by explosives or thermate, result in a collapse virtually identical to the accepted events.

To get: "Free Fall", multiple pops and Poofs, "Pulverized Cement", "Collapsing in own Footprint" you need explosives (or thermate) on -lots- of beams on -lots- of floors.

Lots and lots of explosive (or thermate).

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. So are you saying

you think explosives brought the towers down? I don't understand your post. :shrug:

[MervinFerd]

15. To get evidence visible outside the bldg, you need -lots- of explosives.

There were no explosives.

A few, small, charges -could- have initiated the collapse. (But you have to explain how those could be planted on the floors the airplanes were going to hit and why-on-earth anyone would bother under the circumstances).

But after small charges got things started, the fall proceeds in the standard manner. From the outside, everything looks just the same as a collapse from structural failure.

To get a collapse obviously different from that, you need massive amounts of explosives--too much explosive to be even remotely credible.

[wildbilln864]

14. Yes yes...

you've voiced your opinion once again. It would be nice if you had anything substantive to add to the conversation!
Alas, haven't yet seen this from you, guess you can't.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. More likely

a combination of events would be required to bring the buildings down.

[MervinFerd]

13. Yes, a combination--structural damage and fires.

[wildbilln864]

18. yes....

but structural damage from what? I don't believe a kerosene fire did it. It never has completely collapsed a skyscraper and never will! I don't think a plane would have disintegrated the entire building either! And what about building 7? Small fires on a few floors. I don't even believe a combination of the two would be enough. And I've seen no unbiased evidence to support that it was. I'm aware that the PNAC cabal wanted something like this to happen. I'm aware that that same group has been in charge since Bush took office. They got their "new Pearl Harbor" that they wanted. That's very suspicious in my opinion! Members of our government are involved in drug running, torture, illegal spying, larceny, probably anthrax attacks(murder), etc., etc., etc.!

You take their word for what happened if you want! You go ahead and belittle anyone who has speculations that don't fit your opinions of what happened if you want! But you don't know how it happened either!
And yes demolition is highly possible! We just don't know until it's really investigated thoroughly.
I know Bush was against any scrutiny of what and how it happened.
They had the motive, means and opportunity! It doesn't make sense that OBL did it.

[hack89]

20. Couple of points

1. They were not kerosene fires. The atomized jet fuel ignited the contents of the building as it was sprayed every where and ensured the fires were hot and large almost instantaneously. But the jet fuel was burned out in ten minutes or so. Here is a good description of the physics behind the WTC fires.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

And your point about fires never collapsing a building leave out a significant fact - this is the first time in history that a large jet has crashed into a high rise like the WTC. There are no valid comparisons to the WTC on 911 so the fact it never happened before is completely irrelevant.

2. There were eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage to the side of WTC7 facing the WTC towers. There were also several large fires - they were not small at all.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...

Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

It's easy to believe when you ignore the facts and simple logic.

[MervinFerd]

21. This certainly deserves a response.

Come on, guys and gals!

Hack just demolished your arguments!

Do you have a counter-argument, or are you going to ignore facts and logic and keep repeating the same Bull over and over and over...

and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....

[jschurchin]

22. I really don't think.......

any thinking person on this board would disagree that damage was done to WTC7 and there were fires burning. It is the extent of the damage and fires that could cause a global collapse of the structure that is called into question.

I get the feeling, from reading some people posts on this board, that they really have no idea of the size and strength of the girders used in the construction of WTC7.

The next time you pass under a modern freeway overpass, look at the girders holding up the overpass. These are the type of members used in the construction of the building.

I have no doubt there was exterior structural damage to the building. What I am looking for, and still not have found, is definitive proof that the core was weakened enough by fire and/or damage to cause a global collapse.

If you have this proof Hack, I am sure all of us would appreciate you sharing it. But please don't link us to peoples opinion's, even if they are tenured. Because, lets face it opinions are like assholes, we all have one.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. modern freeway overpass girders

At approximately 10 a.m., a gasoline tanker truck hit the I-65 Southbound bridge. Fire and heat caused the steel girders to sag up to 3 meters (10 feet) on one side.



http://www.allbusiness.com/construction/heavy-civil-engineering-construction-highway/313405-1.html

[jschurchin]

28. Thanks for the input Vincent.

This sentence really caught my eye in the article though.The truck, which was hauling 37,475 liters (9,900 gallons) of fuel, exploded into a fireball that was estimated to have reached more than 1,093C (2,000F) at one point.

Do you have anything from any of the investigating agency's of the WTC showing temperatures inside of WTC7 approaching these types of numbers, as far as heat goes?

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. Temperature alone is meaningless.

You have to look at Energy transferance over time.

[jschurchin]

46. I really would like to see that.

You wouldn't have a link showing this transfer at WTC7 would you? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. If you need a link to understand the concept

I cant help you.

[jschurchin]

57. I understand the concept

I am just asking you to provide a link to the data that proves that this is what caused a global collapse to occur at WTC7.

You know what Vince, forget it. I am sure you have better things to do then search for something that doesn't exist.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. The NIST report would be your best bet

I actually do have better things to do today.

If you understand the concept why did you refer to the temperature as you did?

[jschurchin]

62. I have read the report

And I would like to discuss this more with you, but I have to go to work, 3-11 don't you know. I will explain my reasoning for the temperature when I get a chance.

Thanks for the conversation, I hope it will continue.

John

[MervinFerd]

40. Are you -determined- to miss the obvious point?

Jeez.
The steel girder never got anywhere near 2000 degrees. It didn't need to.

Are you -determined- to miss the obvious point. A simple fire -can- get structural steel hot enough to sag. That completely demolishes a major contention of the Controlled Demolition claim.

Not that it needed much demolishment.

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. Then just show us a picture

of a piece of steel from the WTC that was subjected to intense fire before the collapse that sagged and contributed to the failure of the building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Why pics can be faked right?

So what exactly will that prove to you?

Look yourself.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. FEMA has 100's of pictures

from Ground Zero hosted on their site. They are all high quality, hi res pics that appear to be unaltered. I'm sure you can find something in there?

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Feel Free. (n/t)

[DoYouEverWonder]

69. I've looked

I can't find any.

There's plenty of bent steel but bent from heat from the fires before the collapse is hard to find. Besides since the NIST folks didn't document the evidence, even if you find a picture of one, we have no way to know where in the building that steel came from and no way to find out now that most of the steel has been recycled.

You would think that if the NIST folks had identified the pieces that started the failure of the building, they would have published lot's of pictures of them? Hard to find something that doesn't exist I suppose? Or maybe those pieces, especially from WTC 7, which they didn't save any of the steel from, may have provided evidence of foul play?

[DoYouEverWonder]

80. Here's a small one just for an example

The piece in the forground, that crosses in front of the white sheet of metal, that is bent, burnt and torn.



This one looks like a piece of the aluminum siding? But this is the type of damage I am talking about. I would assume there would be at least a few of the beams and/or columns from the core of the impact zone that would look like this or worse.

[MervinFerd]

66. NO. And I won't provide proof the Earth is round either.

The facts of the situation--that there was intense fire and that such fire can weaken steel--are simply not rationally contestable. Just quit being silly.

Now, if YOU want to go look for such a picture, it is likely that you will not find one. Only a -tiny- fraction of the steel beams would have been affected by the fire. Only -one- need beam need have failed to bring the building down. The odds of finding the photo you seek are remote.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. Only -one- need beam need have failed to bring the building down?

Really?

Do you realize what your are saying?

[MervinFerd]

73. If it is the right beam.

Logically, -one- beam had to go first. There would then be a cascade as other beams were forced to support the load of the failed member.

But, the important point is, the region affected by fire and the initial collapse would be a tiny fraction of the whole structure. Your chances of finding an image of the an affected beam are correspondingly tiny.

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. Then that would mean

that no one need to 'wire' the building or plant explosives everywhere. You just needed to find the right beam and the whole building would come down.

[MervinFerd]

88. Yes. A single charge is possible. But then there is no Free Fall.

Cutting a single beam would result in the same sequence of events as a natural failure of a single beam.

No Free Fall, Pulverized concrete or Poofs and Pows(c).

Just a collapsing building.

[greyl]

63. On the other hand, we're still waiting for evidence that thermite

(or thermate) can cut through a steel beam.
Confirmation bias anyone?

[MervinFerd]

67. There -are- no such pictures!

I hadn't thought much about this until Hack brought it up, but cutting through several inches of steel with some goop attached to the surface?

Naaah. Wouldn't work.

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. They use it to weld railroad tracks

If it gets steel hot enough to weld, then it can also get it hot enough to cut.

[MervinFerd]

74. Welding ain't cutting. And a RR track ain't a structural I-beam.

Welding just requires the -surface- of the two pieces be heated. Cutting through inches of steel would require much more thermate and more thickness of thermate means less efficient transfer of heat to the steel. The beams in a skyscraper are really thick and cutting through them, (or blowing them up) is no trivial business.

It's certainly -possible- that I am wrong about this. But, it's clear that thermate is not a -standard- way of cutting steel beams; thus, it is a reasonable question whether it is possible, and how much of the stuff you would need.

If a) thermate -will not- cut thick beams, or b) extremely large amounts are required; then, Dr. Jones can be confidently dismissed as a crank.

See the value of stating hypotheses clearly?

[DoYouEverWonder]

97. Funny, you can buy thermite on the internet

and at least according to the sellers, you can use it to cut things.

THERMITE COMPOSITION - COMMERCIAL BLEND

High quality thermic composition specially blended to produce molten slag alloys and extreme heat in excess of 4500º F to weld metals together or cut through it like a cutting torch. The military used thermite to destroy equipment, documents and other incendiary uses as well as remote welding. Normally difficult to ignite, it can be easily ignited using thermic prime composition, thermic igniters or a small amount of potassium perchlorate and/or magnesium powder. Easily cuts through 1/8" sheet metal in seconds - heavier metals slightly longer depending on thickness. Virtually dozens of uses for camping and survival in any weather or climate. Comes with instructions.

SECTHERM - $7.95/LB - $36.25/5 LBS - $62.00/10 LBS (FLAMMABLE SOLID)

http://www.firefox-fx.com/specialfx.htm

[wildbilln864]

98. actually....

I don't think it's hard to make yourself, but I don't recommend it, lol.
It's iron oxide and aluminum powder as I understand it. I'd like to see someone do a demonstration to see if a thick piece of steel could be cut. Maybe a piece of railroad track or something.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[greyl]

30. Haha! nt

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[MervinFerd]

42. You two need to go out and get that Cold Fusion working.

I'm very sure you can do it, if anyone can.

[jschurchin]

45. You know Mervin............

from your posts on this board I have become convinced that if brains were dynamite you couldn't blow your nose.

[MervinFerd]

50. My head is filled with Cold Fusion Mini-nukes. No need of dynamite.

You got nothing to say except insults?

[jschurchin]

53. Bring something worthwhile to the

table and then there would be no need to insult you, instead you bring your opinion without facts. Just to clarify a little, I am strictly interested in the engineering and structural aspects of this mystery.

Beam whatever's and cold cuts are some make believe bullshit to give you something to make yourself feel better. Hope it works, but flakes propose it and nitwits respond to it. Some of us just ignore it.

[MervinFerd]

68. It appears you ignore facts and logic also.

If you don't like my posts, there are several here that completely demolish the idea that there is any 'mystery' at all.

But, insult away. I don't mind.

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. Since you can't read the rest of the article without registering

any idea how long the fire burned for and how much damage was done by the tanker hitting the bridge?

Also, it seems this fire was a fair bit hotter then what was reported at the WTC.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. Here's another

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/02sep/05.htm

Where the pic came from. It focuses on the reconstruction engineering. So I don't know how long the fire burned for, or if any damage was done to the bridge by the truck.

As I said, temperature alone is meaningless. Energy transference over time is what matters.

[MervinFerd]

72. D.Y.E.W: It doesn't matter how hot the fire was; it's the steel that matters.

Steel has a high heat capacity, doesn't conduct heat very well, and, in skyscrapers, is covered by insulation (now -why- would they do that?).

The fire was plenty hot to weaken the steel, or to cause it to expand and twist. The question is how much of the heat was conducted -into- the steel.

What this picture shows is that it is --possible-- for an ordinary fire to weaken steel to the point that it loses its strength.

Follow the logic: The argument for Demolition is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for structural damage and fire to cause collapse. This picture demonstrates that this is POSSIBLE. Thus the Demolition argument "Collapses".

Nobody knows how hot it got inside those buildings. The fact that they fell suggests: "Hot enough".

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. Nobody knows how hot

No but NIST has a good IDEA how hot it got. Provided thru analysis and simulation. Which is just slightly more reliable than the cyber-slewth's truth-seeking on the internet.

[quicknthedead]

24. This has been refuted by this new study...NIST ERRONEOUS..

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[hack89]

25. "Winston Smith" huh?

a non-peer reviewed paper by someone unwilling to give his name and credentials.

[mirandapriestly]

83. The current and former NIST heads were appointed by Bush

(the head when 9-11 occurred) (Pearl Harbor Day, as a matter of fact - December 7). Is that the kind of "credentials" you like? you don't think that influences the outcome of their work? The errors in their 9-11 analysis have been shown over and over.

[hack89]

85. Tell me about he hundreds of engineers and scientist

who actually worked on the study. Are they all Bushbots? You really think that not a single one of them would speak out if the science had been manipulated? Especially in an age of digital anonymity via the internet?

You really think the head of NIST actually did any research or writing?

And the paper was peer reviewed - show me how Bush was able to influence everyone that has studied the report since it was written.

[DoYouEverWonder]

86. The 100's of engineers?

I've only seen a few that have actually been named. NIST couldn't even afford more staff to look at WTC 7. Where do you come up with 100's of structural engineers & scientists?

[hack89]

87. Haven't read the NIST report, have you?

1. There were 8 separate teams working on eight different sections

2. There was an advisory board of experts who were non-government and chosen through public solicitation.

3. There are 6 pages of contributing reports with their authors.

4. There is a list of all the public hearings

on edit: and don't forget that the draft report was posted for public comment.

Read the introduction to the NIST report.

You want to believe that this report was a secret affair closely controlled by a very small group of NIST managers. You are wrong.

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. Nothing secret about it all

Just the same old garbage in, garbage out that a lot of research can turn into.

First of all, NIST was not a criminal investigation and they were limited to basing their research on the official theory. They did the best with what little they were given and have reached few if any definitive conclusions.

However, even the engineers and project managers complained to Congress that they could not get access to a lot of the information they wanted to see, that the PA withheld most of the documents they requested, and they were allowed very limited access to the debris from the collapses. Basically, BushCo tied their hands and prevented a real investigation.

I actually feel sorry for some of the researchers on that project. I think at least a few of them know there is a lot of funny stuff going on but they can't come out and directly say anything.

[MervinFerd]

93. Bullshit. nt

[Kingshakabobo]

32. This information alone should, in a perfect world, should end.......

......the debate on the cause of WTC7 and the subsequent "pull it"/Larry Silverstien nonsense.......

But, sadly, it won't.

It should put an end to the nonsensical talk that the fires were "small" and there was no damage to the building.....(20 story hole)

But, sadly, it won't.

The CT'ers should have to make a logical argument why massive un-checked fires CAN'T bring down a building. In making their argument, they should have to explain WHY structural steel is fireproofed in the first place and WHY this steel is given ratings of "hours" when discussing it's ability to withstand a fire......in other words, if steel is only fireproof rated for a couple hours, why WOULDN'T the building collapse after burning for over 8 hours un-checked?

But, sadly, they won't.

They should have to explain how all these firemen are "in on it."

[wildbilln864]

81. 20 story hole?

Good grief man! Where the hell did you get that number from?
Let me guess. You made it up?
And while you're at it can you provide pictures? Of a 20 fot hole specifically! Merv won't believe anything without pictures!
Thanks!

[Kingshakabobo]

82. Why don't you try reading the post I responded to for starters???

>>>>>>>We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.<<<<<<<<<<

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. That image show signs of some serious doctoring

Here's a better picture from the westside of the building, that shows some damage but nothing like what your picture is showing.



You can see almost to the ground level and most of that corner is still intact.


There are more pics of the Towers and the collapse at this site http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm and they are posted in sequence.

[Kingshakabobo]

91. Bullshit. It's the same damage see from a different angle.

Count the stories on the other buildings from your "un-doctored" photo.

No matter which way you slice it, there was massive damage AND fire.

[DoYouEverWonder]

92. In the photo I posted

the windows are still there and the corner is intact.

At the least, the first photo has had most of the yellows and greens pulled out of it. There is no reason to color correct an image so extremely. Makes you wonder what else they did to it?

[MervinFerd]

43. STILL no refutation. There isn't one, is there?

Come on, guys and gals. Answer the criticism.

That's how -real- debate works.

Try it!

[MervinFerd]

49. Hack DEMOLISHED the demolition arguments. Won't anyone respond?

Didn't think so.

[hack89]

17. What does the evidence point to?

if it is "clearly" CD as many here maintain, don't you think it odd that after 5 years the 911 truth community can't articulate a detailed and comprehensive theory on how the WTC might have been wired for demo. By looking at the videos, why can't anyone say "it looks like high explosives were used on these columns on these floors while thermate was used on X to cause this effect." ?

[MervinFerd]

19. and how much explosive would that need?

If we actually take the 'evidence' seriously, what arrangement of explosives is required to produce it?

It is -really- a very simple question.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. No, I don't think it's odd

because we haven't had a real investigation and all we can do is speculate based on the available evidence which is limited, since none of us have direct access to the physical evidence.

If the Government had done a proper investigation, maybe then we be able to figure out how the buildings failed. But without the steel from the impact and fire zones, we may never be able to 'prove' what happened to those buildings.

However, you assume that to be a CTer you have to believe the buildings were 'wired'. There was no need to wire anything. Not when all you have to do is drive a truck with your weapon of choice into one of the freight elevators. Besides any 'special' preparations that needed to be done, would have been relatively easy to carry out since after the 1993 Bombing extensive mechanical renovations were made to the Towers and WTC7. I'm sure a lot of the new stuff that was installed, could have served a dual purpose and the people installing it would never have a clue, like that pressurzied fuel pipe system that they installed on the 5th Floor of WTC7, right under the trusses.

[MervinFerd]

34. What evidence would a truck in the freight elevator produce?

Not much.

See, the supposed evidence is of -massive- amounts of explosives--"Looks like Controlled Demolition, Free Fall, Pulverization of Concrete, multiple Puffs and Poofs, molten metal pools, thermite residue throughout--all these things would require hundreds or thousands of charges precisely placed throughout the building. As well as -massive- amounts of explosive to provide the necessary energy.

It's certainly conceivable somebody got some explosive into the buildings--it happened before. But massive amounts start to look---well---like a Conspiracy Theory.

There -really- is no need to postulate such things. Very large jetliners caused structural damage and started serious fires and, in the opinion of the expert communities, that was enough to cause structural failure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. You keep mentioning all these 'experts'

that claim that the damage from the crashes and the fires that result caused the total collapse of the two towers. Please site your sources and the names of these 'experts'.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[MervinFerd]

39. You haven't answered the question. How much 'evidence'---

would a truck of explosives in a freight elevator produce?

Is there such evidence?

[MervinFerd]

76. The ones who wrote the NIST report. The thousands who read and accepted it?

Come on!! This really isn't very hard.

Would you like me to cite sources that the Earth is round, also?

[MervinFerd]

35. How about a clear statement of what the evidence implies, then?

For example, if you accept Free Fall as evidence, what amount of explosive would be needed to produce Free Fall?

-I- think that it would be a ridiculously large amount. But, prove I am wrong.

It really is just a very basic and simple question. What is your actual theory? State it clearly.

-If- the Truth Movement is actually interest in truth, it should be able to answer it.

[MervinFerd]

16. Still no coherent answer: What hypothesis does the evidence support?

We got "Free Fall". We got "Pulverized Concrete". We got "Poofs and Pops". We got "Glowing Molten Steel". We got "Thermate residue."

What hypothesis does this 'evidence' support?

So far as I can see, the only way these effects could be produced is by several thousand charges, totaling many tons of explosive.

Am I wrong?

[MervinFerd]

36. Simpler question: How many charges are needed for "Free Fall"?

Just a very crude approximation.

Then, we can figure out how many workers would be needed to plant them.

Come on, guys and gals. If the Truth Movement has any Truth within it, this is really a simple and basic question.

Not really expecting an answer.

[MervinFerd]

44. I am not going to get an answer, am I?

[Brainster]

47. Is There A Reason the Plotters Needed Pulverized Concrete?

Or is this just the usual "it happened so therefore it has to be incorporated into the theory"?

[MervinFerd]

48. No. It's a common argument in favor of "Demolition".

-Supposedly- there was not sufficient energy in the fall to "Pulverize" all that concrete and steel; hence, there must have been explosives (or Gamma Death Rays from Planet Theta, GDRfPTs).

But, sauce for the goose, etc---if that is true then the energy supplied by explosives (or GDRfPTs) -must- have been far greater than the available gravitational energy--which was enormous.

Hence, the fair question: How many tons of explosive would be required?

The obvious answer: Far more than is remotely plausible.

Likewise for the "Free Fall" argument: Figure out how much explosive would be needed to do that. It's an impossibly enormous amount.

[MervinFerd]

51. YES, it is just incorporated into the theory. Or not incorporated.

Really, there IS no coherent theory, which is the point of the OP, I think.

No, it makes no sense that "the plotters" would bother to pulverize concrete. Why bother?

But, then, why bother to demolish buildings you just managed to ruin with airplanes?

[jberryhill]

64. You Are Confusind CD with a "Theory"

These discussions are very much like the creation/evolution "debate". There is no "creation theory", but that title is used for a collection of criticisms of various aspects of evolution along the lines of "It couldn't have happened that way because..."

One of the more effective techniques of advancing this sort of non-theory theory is to play off alternative explanations of details in the larger picture. PetGoat is the award winner in this category of discussion with his recent "Aha, the explanation of the collapse mechanism has changed" postings.

[MervinFerd]

65. Perhaps confusing paranoid CTs with rational thought.

In ordinary rational discussions, a person advancing evidence of an hypothesis would clearly state the evidence and the hypothesis that the evidence is supposed to support.

In CT discussions, OTOH, we get "evidence" of -something-, but it is often not clear of what.

Thus, there is much 'evidence' of "Controlled Demolition", but no one advancing that hypothesis will explain what that actually means.

[DoYouEverWonder]

78. No

We are just sick and tired of your relentless attacks.

It is impossible to have a conversation with you, so some of us have stopped trying.

[wildbilln864]

90. EXACTLY!

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

94. The current theory is

that 3 building suffering three random events all experienced rapid sequential collapse, and nobody bothered to investigate why. Instead all they investigated was why the airplanes brought the towers down, not if the airplanes brought the towers down. Just forget about #7

So the current theory holds that the collapse of the towers is highly unlikely and very suspicious. And since there has been no actual investigation into if the planes brought the towers down and since a lot of very puzzling evidence doesn't exactly point to the planes theory, (such as eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions, audio tracks that record the sounds of secondary explosions, persistent steel-melting-temperature hot spots in the rubble pile, the amount of dust and smoke material ejected up as the towers were coming down, the conspicuous absence of bodies, desks, computers, anything really except for steel, aluminum, paper, and dust, the rate of collapse) And that's a partial list.

We hire our government to conduct investigations. We the citizens couldn't begin to construct a theory without access to the evidence, and we all remember the difficulty even the official non-investigation had in getting access to evidence.

My theory is we need an investigation so that we can form a rational theory. What's your theory?

[hack89]

95. Considering there is no physical evidence remaining ...

how will it differ from the NIST study? It would appear to me that any group or company with the expertise to study such events (such as ARUP for example) already concurs with NIST. Judging from the public comments on the NIST report, most professional engineering organization agree in principle with NIST - they may disagree with details but no one besides the 911 "truth " movement disagrees with the idea that the collapse of the WTC towers due to impact damage and fires is theoretically possible. With everyone having invested their reputations in the NIST report, who exactly do you expect to do this study? The 911 "scholars"?

The reason another investigation would fail is that you cannot prove that it was impossible for the towers to fall without demolition. It has been five years and yet the truth movement has yet to produce any experimentation or calculations that prove this basic point.

I agree that an investigation is needed - bush committed impeachable crimes with respect to the CIA and FBI negligence - that is what he is trying to cover up.

[MervinFerd]

96. This is not a theory. It's a statement of your own unsupported suspicion.

The consensus of expert opinion is that the collapse of the buildings is in no way suspicious. That's just plain fact. The experts -did- investigate the causes of collapse which -they- considered plausible. They quite sensibly ignored the opinions of Conspiracy Theorists who had not the slightest qualification in the field.

The supposed evidence of "Controlled Demolition" -- "eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions, audio tracks that record the sounds of secondary explosions, persistent steel-melting-temperature hot spots in the rubble pile, the amount of dust and smoke material ejected up as the towers were coming down, the conspicuous absence of bodies, desks, computers, anything really except for steel, aluminum, paper, and dust, the rate of collapse"-- has been repeatedly and conclusively refuted. In the current thread, even. The refutations are ignored, not met by counter-arguments, as is the custom is -real- discussions.

But, even if we accept the various claims of evidence as true, they don't seem to add up to a coherent picture. Or to a physically plausible scenario. The OP in this post asked, simply, for a coherent statement of the theory from the people who support it. Such a statement would allow us to estimate the quantities of explosive and the number of people necessary to execute the supposed demolition, and thus whether the evidence is plausible.

So, we are still waiting for a coherent statement of "the theory".


And, we need investigations, yes. But not of why skyscrapers severely damaged by impact and fire fell under their own weight.