science proves twin towers were demolished

[runlikell]

The Twin Towers were marvels of structural engineering when constructed. Nowadays, it's well accepted that they were built in a highly redundant fashion using far more steel than necessary. The structures were built to withstand the impact of multiple large planes, and there is no evidence of faulty construction.

The manner in which the towers collapsed, as proven through a huge amount of video evidence from a multitude of sources, is such that they simply could not have possibly have not been demolished but in a controlled manner through the release of a tremendous amount of energy during the collapse sequence.

A self initiated collapse, even taking into account the impact of the planes and ensuing fires, does not even come close to being a sufficient explanation for how it began to fall.

A total collapse is also unexaplined without adding energy through explosives and the like.

 

Same goes for the manner in which the steel was left, broken into so many fragments.

Same goes for the lateral ejection of crushed concrete and other materials with considerable force.

Same goes for the extremely hot temperature of the debris for such a lengthy period.

Same goes for the speed of collapse, which requires energy to remove much of the structure beneath collase zone so as to allow for collapse momentum to be maintained.

 

I want to make something clear. I am not a, as they call them, "conspiracy theorist". That is, I don't believe in an evil cabal controlling the world, nor do I have any theories of government cover-ups. I am a logician, a scientist, and a skeptic--requiring valid evidence and logical soundness for all of my beliefs.

 

I am not arguing that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. That is not a scientific issue. This is.

 

How can this remain ignorned by scientists throughout America? We need to speak up!

Edited November 11, 2011 by runlikell

[Klaynos]

You've made some bold statements there. Where's your evidence? Saying things like

 

A self initiated collapse, even taking into account the impact of the planes and ensuing fires, does not even come close to being a sufficient explanation for how it began to fall.

 

Is going to require quantitative backing on a science forum.

[PhDwannabe]

Science proves it, does it? And yet,

How can this remain ignorned by scientists throughout America? We need to speak up!

Weird that they could prove it while they were so busy ignoring it.

 

And speaking of ignoring it, have you read the NIST reports? It doesn't look ignored to me. It looks, rather, like you have a bunch of questions that were comprehensively answered years ago, and have ignored or been ignorant of the scientific investigations which have provided lengthy, informed responses to them. Do you have some kind of commentary on the content of the NIST reports or other professional scientific investigations into the means of the collapse of the WTC?

 

I want to make something clear. I am not a, as they call them, "conspiracy theorist". That is, I don't believe in an evil cabal controlling the world, nor do I have any theories of government cover-ups.

I want to make something clear. You are a, as they call them, "conspiracy theorist." You are talking about something which, if it truly happened, would essentially require a massive coverup by a government or some kind of enormously powerful nonstate actor. The content of this conspiracy may seem different to you than the beliefs of most 9/11 "truthers." But when you blast through the gate with a statement like "science proves twin towers were demolished" by some means other than two jet airliners (which is just patently false, since this "science" thing you're speaking of is a massive community whose findings you don't get to independently make pronouncements about) and then, instead of evidence, basically make argumenta ad ignorantiam--the existing story can't explain this and that, so it must be this theory I have instead--and apparently just skip over entirely the actual science that's been done on the topic... yeah. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. You're a conspiracy theorist.

[runlikell]

I am aware of the nature of the topic being super duper touchy, as, for one, admitting to controlled demolition implies what is nearly an incomprehensible level of incompetence and/or corruption on behalf of our beloved and trusted institutions of government, media, and education--eliciting deep feelings of anger, distrust, and hopelessness in most of those who do come to admit to believing the twin tower destruction hypothesis as false. In addition, 3,000 of our citizens died that day, with an even higher death toll accuring after that day mainly from health issues due to severe toxic exposure in the cleanup of GroundZero by ill-informed poorly, equipped patriotic volunteers--and to imply those deaths as potentially unsolved evoked pain in so many. And the general trauma of that day, and the War on Terror that has followed, is such that many would prefer not to the possibility of alternative explanations at all.

 

Rejection of the official one, is extremely taboo, so much so that it's not even worth defending any argument against the "theory"----which, of course, explains a completely unexpected and drastically unprecedented total and rapid collapse of a steel-framed modern skyrise, as the result of minor structural damage from the crash combined with a relatively short in duration and mild in intensity jet fuel boosted hydrocarbon office fire--allegedly well accepted (despite the notion of mass levels of support from the relevant experts still remaining unverified) by relevant professionals. The story is not worth dissenting against to a great deal of scientists and technologists and engineers who have serious doubts but fear the consequences of speaking up about those doubts too loudly and effectively, having seen what happens to those who have. History has shown us this terrible predicament of the suppression of truth despite many intellectuals having, internally conceived and only privately shared, a strong rejection of the current 'common sense' well accepted ((as far as one can tell through lack of opposition in oppressive societies) by virtually all people of a respectable status within society. It's happened several times before, just as logical freethinkers of past eras did not speak up about their disbelief in Heaven, Hell, religion as a whole, or the grand daddy of God's existence, not because they lacked passion or valid arguments, but sadly out of legitimate fear of ostrisization, death, or worse (ie, torture with methods that'd make a victim of such look at an upcoming day of waterboarding as a sort of vacation). The fear of severe consequences is still valid in this day and age, through career loss, humiliation, and even threats of harm to family.

 

I'd like to make it clear that I have every intention for any ensuing discussion to remain as such instead of quickly becoming an argument, which almost unavoidably leads to ad hominen attacks against me on this topic, at least thus far in my many instancses of bringing it up through attempts to pursuade others to question the propaganda of our time. Please, may we all do our best to remain fully civil and keep the discussion as objective as possible. What I would really like to see, more than anything else, is for each side of the argument to be treated equally in all standards, to apply just as scrutiny and critical investigation towards all hypothesis, without giving the preferred, much more comfortable (for Americans) and easier to swallow and fully digest (metaphorically speaking; in terms of thought) official hypothesis any preference.

 

 

I will admit right here and now that I am not a formally trained scientists. I am hence not familiar with many of the expectations surrounding the presentation of scientific material and other arbitrarily determined details for scientific communication. By no means does that justify an assumption that there's any lack of intelligence, knowledge, or ability for insight (lateral thinking as I like to call it). I just haven't memorized modern Western society's rules for the professional presentation of evidence. Regarding the argument put forth in this thread, I do not come unprepared to defend it. Not by any means. Bring it on .

 

So, you ask for evidence, quantitative backing. Of course, not a problem. Could you please specify what you consider to be satisfactory evidence? In regards to my claim that collapse initiation was not feasible, I used the NIST report claiming the collision+fire as cause of collapse as a reference for estimates of structural damage done from the collision (petty at worst), and examined building blueprints to see what was there, studies how steel framed highrises tend to respond to hydrocarbon fires as there have been many far worse fires which burnt for far longer in the past. Also, it doesn't hurt to know the properties of steel .

[Klaynos]

I'm not sure, lets see the evidence so that we can form a view. You claim it's scientifically proven, so I assume the quantitative evidence is rather strong.

[John Cuthber]

We are still waiting for the "science" from the last thread like this.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/17133-is-this-thermite/page__st__40

[md65536]

How about the evidence provided here: http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

Part of the problem is that the government prevented a proper investigation, so a lot of the missing evidence was hidden and destroyed.

There was a conspiracy. The government implemented a HUGE cover-up.

That's not evidence that anything specific was covered up, but when the details of such a huge crime are hidden by the ones supplying the official story of what happened, that's extremely suspicious.

Accepting the official story, when the evidence doesn't support that version, is as scientifically wrong as accepting the conspiracy theory without evidence.

 

A proper investigation needs to be done, before the OP's post can be judged correct or not.

[John Cuthber]

What evidence?

I looked and there's lots of adverts and a few things like some bloke saying "I had a full four-year scholarship to Cooper Union College in Manhattan, a small school with an acceptance rate of about 8% of those who take the application test,"

Which suggests that maybe he was clever once, but isn't evidence of his current ability.

"Dusterwald remembered feeling that something was really odd about the way the WTC skyscrapers fell on September 11, 2001. “It did not fit what I know from my 37 years experience as a licensed structural engineer,” he said."

 

Oh, so a bloke who "feels it's odd" is now evidence is it?

No, just kidding. Of course it isn't.

And as for "“It did not fit what I know from my 37 years experience as a licensed structural engineer,”"

Of course it didn't. In those 37 years nobody deliberately flew two fully laden jets into a couple of skyscrapers. It was not, and could not be part of his experience.

 

As for ". In his past experience, every event involving an aircraft crash or a building failure was investigated carefully with systems put into place developed to protect forensic evidence. “First they would cordon off the whole area, take pictures and carefully mark all material removed from the site, so that the forensic experts could determine how the failure happened,” he recalled. “After 9/11, they were just carting stuff away as fast as they could.”"

 

Yeah well, that could be some weird conspiracy, but did anyone consider that

1 they wanted to get the city moving again and (perhaps more importantly)

2They knew what the failure was.

Some bastards had flown aircraft into the buildings.

You don't need a forensic investigation of the rubble to tell you that- it was on film.

 

Seriously. If that's the sort of "evidence" that you can supply for the conspiracy then it's time you realised that nobody is ever going to believe you.

 

In this context it is reasonable to examine the OP's contention and the fact is that the science doesn't support the idea of a demolishion (except in the bloody obvious sense that the terrorists wanted to bring the building down; which is demolishing it).

[md65536]

Oh, so a bloke who "feels it's odd" is now evidence is it?

No. How someone feels is not evidence. The qualifications of someone who has an opinion is not evidence. Sorry for making you waste your time posting stuff that you know is nonsense.

 

A lot of AE911Truth is devoted to calling for an investigation and stuff. Its not all "evidence". I too don't want to waste my time reading everything on the site either, so how about just the points on the right side of http://www.ae911truth.org/? I've removed a few points that might be argued "not evidence".

 

----

 

 

 

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

 

1. Rapid onset of collapse

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

 

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

 

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

 

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

 

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

 

 

 

As seen in this revealing photo [http://www.ae911truth.org/], the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

 

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

Extremely rapid onset of destruction

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

 

Slow onset with large visible deformations

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.

 

Yeah well, that could be some weird conspiracy, but did anyone consider that

1 they wanted to get the city moving again and (perhaps more importantly)

2They knew what the failure was.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't justify a lapse of scientific rigor.

 

Would you accept similar reasoning if there was a claim that cold fusion was real, but the experiment was kept secret and then destroyed before it could be analyzed by others (even if there was a video of it working)? Would you accept findings in climate science if the result was "what everybody knows" but the data was not open to scrutiny?

 

I think that the point I'm trying to argue is that if one needs to provide irrefutable evidence that the official 9/11 story is incorrect, that implies that the official story is accepted science. I would say that it is an appalling failure of science if the official story can be considered accepted science, the way that it came about.

 

 

 

Edit: I suppose that I must accept that any claim needs to be backed up by evidence. It doesn't matter "what side it's on". A claim of "the Bush administration got it right" would need to be backed up by evidence. Arguing that the evidence is insufficient is NOT an argument that a counter-claim is correct. Similarly, I think we could all benefit from accepting that lack of evidence for one claim is not evidence for a counter-claim. Conversely, evidence for a counter-claim is (or can be?) evidence against a claim.

 

In other words, a lack of evidence is not going to win any arguments either way (and unfortunately this case is wracked with missing evidence). However, arguing that the OP is wrong because there IS evidence against OP's contention, would require evidence.

Edited November 15, 2011 by md65536

[md65536]

the fact is that the science doesn't support the idea of a demolishion

Does this mean that there is a lack of or insufficient evidence to support the idea of demolition?

Or does it mean that there is scientific evidence that opposes or rules out the idea?

Do you know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the controlled demolition theory?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"Would you accept similar reasoning if there was a claim that cold fusion was real, but the experiment was kept secret and then destroyed before it could be analyzed by others (even if there was a video of it working)?"

 

What the **** has that got to do with the issue?

Are you claiming that the planes didn't hit the buildings?

That's what happened.

There's no question that we know what happened. Some people flew aircraft into the buildings.

 

 

"Do you know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the controlled demolition theory?"

As far as I'm aware no significant explosives residues were ever found. (And, I know 'cos it's part of my job, that you can find explosives residues years or decades later if you look, so the fact that they cleared up first and studied later doesn't affect that fact)

The scientific conclusion from that is that no explosives were present.

The scientific conclusion from that is that explosives were not used to destroy the building.

[md65536]

What the **** has that got to do with the issue?

Are you claiming that the planes didn't hit the buildings?

That's what happened.

There's no question that we know what happened. Some people flew aircraft into the buildings.

I'm saying that "planes hit the buildings" is not enough sufficient evidence for the official explanation (which is dubious, for example that a building can fall at near free-fall speeds while "pancaking").

Occam's razor is not a law, and it doesn't state that "The simplest explanation is always the correct one."

I think that "Planes hit the buildings, therefore that is the reason that they collapsed" is unscientific.

 

As an example, yes I will claim that a plane didn't hit building 7, yet it collapsed in less than a day with *complete* structural failure. Therefore "planes hit the buildings" is not a sufficient explanation.

 

 

"Do you know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the controlled demolition theory?"

As far as I'm aware no significant explosives residues were ever found. (And, I know 'cos it's part of my job, that you can find explosives residues years or decades later if you look, so the fact that they cleared up first and studied later doesn't affect that fact)

The scientific conclusion from that is that no explosives were present.

The scientific conclusion from that is that explosives were not used to destroy the building.

 

Do you have evidence that no explosive residues were found, or are you just not aware of it?

 

Here are references to evidence of explosives:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/351-advanced-pyrotechnic-or-explosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

[PhDwannabe]

Do you have evidence that no explosive residues were found, or are you just not aware of it?

He doesn't need evidence that no explosive residues were found. That's negative evidence and it's not evidence.

 

Do you have evidence no unicorn horns were found in the rubble? A great amount of what they call gypsum dust covered the site--they said it was from drywall, but calcium sulfate is also an important component of unicorn horn, which supports my unicorn theory.

[John Cuthber]

MD65536,

I have a suggestion.

Rather than an endless back and to argument over this bit of data and that bit of data, can I ask you to provide your own personal "top 5" pieces of evidence for why you believe that the towers fell as anything other than a consequence of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires?

 

Just a list of 5 items - preferable with a link to put them in context but I can probably live without one in most cases.

 

Also, can I ask for the rest of the contributors to the forum to hold fire for a few days or so in order to give him a chance to chose his "champions" and for me to offer a rebuttal.

[md65536]

As far as I'm aware no significant explosives residues were ever found. (And, I know 'cos it's part of my job, that you can find explosives residues years or decades later if you look, so the fact that they cleared up first and studied later doesn't affect that fact)

The scientific conclusion from that is that no explosives were present.

 

He doesn't need evidence that no explosive residues were found. That's negative evidence and it's not evidence.

That's true, but he made a "scientific conclusion" based on the statement of not being aware of any explosive residues.

 

"I don't know if any explosive evidence was found, therefore I conclude that no explosives were present" is very different from "I am aware that there was a test made for explosives and it was negative, therefore I conclude that no explosives were present." I was asking for clarification on what he meant because it could be either.

 

It's true, he doesn't need to provide evidence that no explosives were found, to argue against OP's claims or mine, but he does need to provide evidence to back up his own "scientific conclusions".

 

I have demonstrated evidence of thermite found. This contradicts the conclusion that no explosives were present. -- Technically thermite isn't necessarily explosive so I might need to clean up my argument. It could be possible that the towers fell due to controlled demolition AND that no explosives were used in that process. However, 1) there is evidence of explosives, as seen in the video and witness testimony, and 2) the core argument of this thread is not limited to explosives, but rather "controlled demolition vs. structural failure directly caused by the planes". This is beside the point that anyone's "scientific conclusions" must be backed up.

 

 

 

 

Do you have evidence no unicorn horns were found in the rubble? A great amount of what they call gypsum dust covered the site--they said it was from drywall, but calcium sulfate is also an important component of unicorn horn, which supports my unicorn theory.

Then perhaps you have stronger evidence for unicorns than the Bush administration had for their explanation.

 

However in your case, the "it was from drywall" explanation is reasonable and scientifically possible. I'm not aware* of any reasonable explanation that would explain the evidence of thermite in the rubble other than the use of demolitions.

 

 

* (and if you challenge me on that, it would be up to me to provide evidence if I wanted to back up my claim that there's no explanation in the official story, for the evidence of thermite.)

 

 

 

Unresolved fact: WTC 7 did not collapse due to a plane crashing into it. That explanation alone is invalid.

 

I truly believe that you have to either trust the scientific integrity of the Bush administration over previous scientific understanding, and/or you have to ignore scientific principles altogether and accept what the state tells you (even if it's that 2+2 sometimes equals 5), in order to accept the official account of what happened.

[John Cuthber]

Can I just point out something really rather dull.

I have still not seen any evidence, or even purported evidence, of explosives in the debris.

Thermite is not an explosive.

 

As a second, rather uninteresting point. They seem to have found iron oxide and aluminium.

They seem not to have taken any notice of the fact that iron oxide is formed from steel in the presence of hot air.

There were steel beams in the building.

A fire was seen in the building.

Fires create hot air (rather a lot in this case).

There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of iron oxide.

 

The aircraft were largely made from aluminium.

 

There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of aluminium.

Perhaps the real killer is that they found a mixture with the right components to make thermite (big deal- lots of kids make it so it's not difficult)

What they didn't seem to find was the molten iron and alumina that you get after a thermite reaction.

 

What they have found might be thermite- but if it is then it didn't work.

 

Another dull fact is that people who know how to drop buildings use shaped charges. They don't use thermite to cut steel beams.

There's a really good reason why not.

Watch this vid and see if you can work out why. (You might want to turn the sound down).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-jVzYpQzc&feature=related

 

The teeny weeny little problem is that thermite doesn't really cut through steel very well.

 

 

Now, I wonder if you would be good enough to comment on my idea that you let me know your top 5 reasons. (Up to 10 or so won't kill me if you really can't tell the story in just 5)

[md65536]

MD65536,

I have a suggestion.

Rather than an endless back and to argument over this bit of data and that bit of data, can I ask you to provide your own personal "top 5" pieces of evidence for why you believe that the towers fell as anything other than a consequence of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires?

 

Just a list of 5 items - preferable with a link to put them in context but I can probably live without one in most cases.

 

Also, can I ask for the rest of the contributors to the forum to hold fire for a few days or so in order to give him a chance to chose his "champions" and for me to offer a rebuttal.

 

Okay, I like this idea. But this isn't a court case. If it were I would be very poor representation, and I can't "close the case" for others who think the official story is bull. I think others should be encouraged to contribute. Also "top 5" is arbitrary... it really only requires one piece of evidence. I haven't done the research, but it's fair to expect that evidence must be provided for any claims that I want to stand by.

 

My top 5 pieces of evidence:

1) All 3 buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. This is physically impossible if the "pancaking" floors had to counter any resistance to falling. The floors had to fall countering the resistance of vertical steel beams. This could be explainable if the floors were connected to the beams as weakly as possible, but then the floors would fall past the vertical columns. Either they slip past at near free-fall, or the energy required to destroy the vertical beams supporting each tower would have to come from somewhere, and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds.

 

2) Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane nor was its structure compromised by debris. All 3 towers officially fell due to fires. WTC 7 didn't have jet fuel burning to explain it as an extraordinary fire or anything like that. No comparable building has ever collapsed due to fire, even though there are many examples of comparable buildings burning with larger fires burning for much longer, with NO complete structural failure. Existing evidence is that such buildings do not suffer complete structural failure due to ordinary fires.

 

3) The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular, but it is suspicious. I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable. The Bush administration very literally was hiding something, which while unknown, makes their official "scientific" findings unreliable.

 

4) Evidence of thermite and explosives was found, and including destruction of steel supports that can't be attributed to fire.

 

5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

1) All 3 buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. This is physically impossible if the "pancaking" floors had to counter any resistance to falling. The floors had to fall countering the resistance of vertical steel beams. This could be explainable if the floors were connected to the beams as weakly as possible, but then the floors would fall past the vertical columns. Either they slip past at near free-fall, or the energy required to destroy the vertical beams supporting each tower would have to come from somewhere, and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds.

It's fairly clear you haven't read NIST's report on the subject, since they address this issue quite extensively. In fact, they specifically discount the "pancaking" theory:

 

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

In short, the collapsing floors yanked the vertical columns inwards as they fell, so the vertical columns did not have to break for the collapse to continue.

[md65536]

What they didn't seem to find was the molten iron and alumina that you get after a thermite reaction.

 

 

"Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses" http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

 

 

Another dull fact is that people who know how to drop buildings use shaped charges. They don't use thermite to cut steel beams.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming that anyone wanted it to look like a demolition. Obviously if it was a demolition then it was done covertly.

 

Re. the video: A guy in a wife-beater saying "You'd need a bucket of thermite" is not a credible expert or anything. If thermite is used to cut steel beams, it is not done by putting a loose pile of it on a beam. That's like lighting a pile of gunpowder on a cannonball, watching it not move very far, and claiming that "they don't use gunpowder to launch cannonballs".

 

 

 

In short, the collapsing floors yanked the vertical columns inwards as they fell, so the vertical columns did not have to break for the collapse to continue.

The vertical columns didn't break?

[mississippichem]

 

4) Evidence of thermite and explosives was found, and including destruction of steel supports that can't be attributed to fire.

 

The paper by Jones claiming to find thermitic nanocomposite is perhaps the worst piece of analytical chemistry literature I've ever laid eyes on.

 

He displays no knowledge of proper differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) technique, a technique that I have much experience with. I can detail these issues if need be.

 

Basically he claims that he found evidence of a thermitic reaction taking place during DSC but cannot claim such under the conditions he employed.

 

His microscopy work proves absolutely nothing. I work in nanomaterials and have experience with similar methodology.

 

He didn't analyze the rest of the debris samples either. Only the suspected thermite. That is dishonest on multiple levels.

 

His elemental analysis only proves that there is aluminum and iron in buildings, that is hardly surprising.

 

Even if he found a huge piece of thermite and confirmed it, I wouldn't care. You can't user thermite to cut verticle columns, gravity pulls the liquid iron down not sideways. Anyway, the amount of thetmite needed to cut hundreds if steel I-beams would be in the hundreds if tons, reference upon request.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The vertical columns didn't break?

I recommend you read the NIST report. I can't really repeat their analysis here.

[John Cuthber]

OK, to start with part 1

Firstly, we should ideally qualify "near free fall speed".

There isn't one. If they were in free fall they would accelerate continuously on the way down.

The collapse is difficult to see well on any video because it's dusty and the people often stop filming to run.

As far as I can judge the floors fall as they would be expected to if the building pancaked. The delay between one floor and the rest is similar, but that delay doesn't get much shorter as the building falls. Each floor starts from rest as the floor above hits it. In free fall, each floor would fall at the same rate and the floors wouldn't get squashed together until they hit the ground.

 

If they were in free fall because the girders were cut, then the first floor to break would be relatively slow, the second one would be faster the third faster still and so on.

There's some evidence of that, but not as much as you would get with free fall.

 

It's a bit of an oversimplification but the girders at the corners of the building have nothing to hold them out, but the impact of the debris pulling them in. That's why they get pulled down. They "roll up" into the building.

 

Also you make an assertion that is unsupported and doesn't make much sense "and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds."

What other speed would they fall at?

 

Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between the two states. In one case you cut most of the supports with cutting charges and so the building falls- one layer lands on the one below it and that collapses. Those two land on the next one down and so on.

In the case of the WTC, one floor was weakened by a massive fire. The weight of the floors above collapses that floor, and it lands on the one below. The impact smashes that and the whole lot carries on down pancaking the floors under it in turn.

 

The failure modes are so similar it isn't possible to say clearly from the video which happened.

Part 2

The simple answer is that normally, if there's a damn great fire in a skyscraper the whole fire service is mobilised to do something about it. In this case, they were busy.

It's not realistic to compare that fire with an "ordinary" one. Apart from anything else, ordinary fires only have one "seat". The one in that building set lots of floors alight at the same time. There was not the usual supply of water or manpower to put it out,

There's your assertion that "nor was its structure compromised by debris" which is odd. It was clearly hit by a lot of debris- there is no evidence that the debris didn't do any damage?

 

part 3

" The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular"

You said it.

As I have pointed out there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. They wanted the mess tidied up so the city could recover quickly. There was no evidence at that time to suggest anything other than a terrorist outrage so there was no reason to look for clues about the cause of the collapse. They fell because the planes (or debris) hit them. Why make things worse by delaying the clear up?

Also, re " I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable" Logically you don't believe in a lot of things then. Do you believe that men landed on the moon? If you do the you have contradicted yourself. If you don't then people will draw their own conclusions.

 

Part 4

As I explained, there is, at best, evidence that if thermite was present, it didn't burn. Finding three of the commonest 5 elements on the planet is hardly evidence of anything. (oxygen, iron, aluminium)

If it had been there and burned it wouldn't have done much, as shown by that video clip. In any event thermite isn't an explosive.

What explosives? Is there actually any evidence of any?

In particular is there evidence of the massive amounts that would have been needed?

 

Part 5

5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished.

Testimony isn't evidence I'm afraid. People are prepared to lie for any number of reasons.

The art of "prediction" has been with us for a long time, but it was never very credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

 

I agree that 5 points was arbitrary- but I only have so much time to spend on things like this.

As you said, one point would be enough.

Unfortunately all the points you raised were somewhere between dubious and wrong.

 

Now, if the best 5 reasons to believe the conspiracy are not valid, there's no point whatsoever looking at numbers 5 to 10 or 10 to 1000000.

So, we can stop now.

[md65536]

You can't user thermite to cut verticle columns, gravity pulls the liquid iron down not sideways. Anyway, the amount of thetmite needed to cut hundreds if steel I-beams would be in the hundreds if tons, reference upon request.

Both statements are incorrect.

See www.youtube.c...XB6gjPA#t=8m16s

(The link skips to several demonstrations of thermite cutting columns.)

 

Part 2

The simple answer is that normally, if there's a damn great fire in a skyscraper the whole fire service is mobilised to do something about it. In this case, they were busy.

It's not realistic to compare that fire with an "ordinary" one. Apart from anything else, ordinary fires only have one "seat". The one in that building set lots of floors alight at the same time. There was not the usual supply of water or manpower to put it out,

There's your assertion that "nor was its structure compromised by debris" which is odd. It was clearly hit by a lot of debris- there is no evidence that the debris didn't do any damage?

 

The simple answer is invalid. "Fire service doing something about it" doesn't invalidate the evidence of other larger, hotter fires burning for much larger in other skyscrapers.

No need to compare to "ordinary" fires. Here are several examples of multi-seat, multi-floor fires: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

There are no examples of skyscrapers collapsing due to fire.

 

The support structure of WTC 7 was not completely and uniformly compromised by debris.

 

 

Now, if the best 5 reasons to believe the conspiracy are not valid, there's no point whatsoever looking at numbers 5 to 10 or 10 to 1000000.

So, we can stop now.

That's some good scientific reasoning there.

 

No, just kidding.

 

 

 

Part 5

5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished.

Testimony isn't evidence I'm afraid. People are prepared to lie for any number of reasons.

The art of "prediction" has been with us for a long time, but it was never very credible.

It is evidence, but I agree we won't get anywhere with it (especially scientifically) so we can remove #5 from the list.

 

That's very true that people lie for many reasons. This applies to both sides of the argument. So we won't present evidence that is just what someone (including NIST) says unless it can be backed up or verified or reproduced.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2011 by md65536

[md65536]

Part 4

As I explained, there is, at best, evidence that if thermite was present, it didn't burn. Finding three of the commonest 5 elements on the planet is hardly evidence of anything. (oxygen, iron, aluminium)

If it had been there and burned it wouldn't have done much, as shown by that video clip. In any event thermite isn't an explosive.

What explosives? Is there actually any evidence of any?

In particular is there evidence of the massive amounts that would have been needed?

My previous post re. pools of molten metal suggest that it did burn.

The previously posted video www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA#t=8m16s demonstrates that modest amounts of thermite can be shaped to cut through steel beams.

 

The same video shows, as http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf claims, that thermite can react explosively.

 

I'm confused by what you mean by "the massive amounts that would have been needed". Needed for what? To produce the results that we saw on that day? If your argument is that the buildings fell solely from the impact of the planes and the burning of jet fuel and building contents, then why would any explosives be needed?

 

To clarify, I'm not arguing that the planes and the fires didn't contribute to the towers' destruction. I'm not even arguing that it's impossible that the towers could fall from impact+fires alone. What I'm arguing is that the evidence indicates that they didn't, ie that there were other factors that conspired that day.

 

part 3

" The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular"

You said it.

As I have pointed out there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. They wanted the mess tidied up so the city could recover quickly. There was no evidence at that time to suggest anything other than a terrorist outrage so there was no reason to look for clues about the cause of the collapse. They fell because the planes (or debris) hit them. Why make things worse by delaying the clear up?

Also, re " I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable" Logically you don't believe in a lot of things then. Do you believe that men landed on the moon? If you do the you have contradicted yourself. If you don't then people will draw their own conclusions.

 

I'll accept that 3 can be scratched off the list because it's not a very sciencey argument.

I don't accept that it was perfectly reasonable. The Bush administration had to fight a lot of people to keep information hidden, to stymie investigations, to keep things quiet. They didn't do it in the best interests of people "to tidy the mess" because they were fighting people who wanted the investigations done. Finding out the truth was in the best interests of the people.

 

It's possible that there was a good reason that they had to lie and cover up -- perhaps it was in everyone's best interest -- but that would still fall under the category of "the official explanation is not the truth."

 

Evidence of the moon landing wasn't quickly "tidied up" and destroyed.

 

 

 

The collapse is difficult to see well on any video because it's dusty and the people often stop filming to run.

[...]

Also you make an assertion that is unsupported and doesn't make much sense "and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds."

What other speed would they fall at?

 

This video shows 3 things to address your comments:

1) The collapse of WTC 7 is clearly visible on video. Granted, the twin towers were shrouded in pyroclastic clouds and your argument is acceptable for them.

2) It really does show free-fall speeds.

3) At 3:30 it explains what I meant -- if the energy used to destroy the beams was extracted from the inertia (or I should have said kinetic energy) of falling floors, then the falling floors would be slowed.

 

 

Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between the two states. In one case you cut most of the supports with cutting charges and so the building falls- one layer lands on the one below it and that collapses. Those two land on the next one down and so on.

In the case of the WTC, one floor was weakened by a massive fire. The weight of the floors above collapses that floor, and it lands on the one below. The impact smashes that and the whole lot carries on down pancaking the floors under it in turn.

 

 

It's fairly clear you haven't read NIST's report on the subject, since they address this issue quite extensively. In fact, they specifically discount the "pancaking" theory.

(To be fair I hadn't read it either.)

 

"Pancaking" was the original official explanation, but when that was proven ridiculous they changed the official explanation.

 

Now, if the best 5 reasons to believe the conspiracy are not valid, there's no point whatsoever looking at numbers 5 to 10 or 10 to 1000000.

So, we can stop now.

I think that 3 of the 5 remain valid.

Also, OP's list of reasons yet haven't been shown to be invalid.

I think we'd have to consider points 6 through 1000000 individually to determine their validity.

 

Stop whenever. I think I have given a lot of evidence to back up OP's claims.

Edited November 17, 2011 by md65536

[Iggy]

This video shows 3 things to address your comments:

1) The collapse of WTC 7 is clearly visible on video. Granted, the twin towers were shrouded in pyroclastic clouds and your argument is acceptable for them.

2) It really does show free-fall speeds.

3) At 3:30 it explains what I meant -- if the energy used to destroy the beams was extracted from the inertia (or I should have said kinetic energy) of falling floors, then the falling floors would be slowed.

From watching the video it looks like a point on the roofline accelerated downward at 9.8 m/s² for about 2 seconds (accelerating much, much less before the 2 seconds and significantly less after).

 

I would suspect, but I haven't looked into this at all, that the core of the building (or some part of its interior) collapsed first while the perimeter (or at least the part of the perimeter measured on the video) stayed pretty much in place. The core would have picked up some speed before it ripped down the perimeter around it. For a short time the perimeter would have collapsed not only from its own weight, but from the transferred momentum of the already-collapsing core.

 

It's like dropping two concrete blocks that are connected by a rope one after the other. The second one dropped will, for a time, be yanked down by the already-falling first. The second one could accelerate at 9.8 m/s² or more.

 

If all of the measurements in the video are accurate then something like this had to have happened regardless of the cause of structural failure (fire or demolition) because things typically don't like to fall at 9.8 m/s² with air resistance. Some part of the building must have had a greater velocity than the spot that was measured on the roofline in the video during those 2 seconds.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Iggy