9/11 media happenings

[MikeMcc]

6

. Here'a page with quotes on the flashes, and also a good video where you can hear the 'pops'. Evidence of demolition charges in WTC2 for example

That was a really well thought out site, not! "Lets take a bunch of comments by a group of people with probably no experience in that sort of thing and lump then together and call it evidence...". It's not like the pops and bangs could be immpacts, structural members snapping...

 

[editor]

6. Here'a page with quotes on the flashes, and also a good video where you can hear the 'pops'. Evidence of demolition charges in WTC2 for example

The author of that piece has ZERO experience or qualifications in demolition.

None. Zilch. You may as well cite a postman's opinion (while ignoring all the infinitely more qualified expert opinion from demolition experts all around the world, as usual. Why is it that, Jazzz?).

Oh, and I see you're still linking to that laughable piece of loon fiction, prisonplanet.

Don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[TheArchitect]

Right, I'm going to break down this into a series of manageable posts dealing with each of the main areas raised, starting with fires. Just to be quite clear, it is your detailed view that:

The NIST fire modelling assumes, because it has to in order find validation for a fire-induced collapse theory, that there were blazing infernos in both towers. All very well, but if one looks at the South Tower in particular, there's no evidence of an inferno whatsoever. The available evidence suggests that, at the time the tower collapse, there were simply a few isolated pockets of fire. I remember watching it happen on TV, and seeing that black smoke had pretty much ceased coming out of the building, and the commentators saying the same. It was thought that firefighters hadn't been able to get very far up the tower, but when their tape was released it transpired that they had got all the way up to the impact floors, and instead of reporting any infernos they were talking about how they were going to put out some isolated pockets of fire

"Battalion Chief Palmer: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

10-45 Code Ones means dead bodies."

(i) The South Tower, WTC2, was hit by flight 175 - a Boeing 767 carrying about 9000 US gallons of fuel, travelling at around 540mph at impact. In addition to the plane itself, it carried around 9 tons of cargo.

(ii) As those of us who have seen the television pictures know, it was banking heavily when it hit. The centre of the aircraft hit the 81st floor, with the bulk of the aircraft hitting 79 to 83. Wingtips extended as far as 78 and 85.

(iii) The 78th floor suffered damage to 9 perimeter columns, and significant damage to the interior linings (including partitions), but no damage to the cor itself. Occupants are known to have survived,

(iv) The severity of damage on the floors above is not in doubt; floor slabs were broken in some areas and sagged elsewhere, core structure was compromised, and fire protection dislodged by the impact. A significant proportion of the plane's fuel (around 15%) exploded within the building itself, igniting the contents.

(vi) Firefighters made it as far as the 78th floor, reporting:

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

(vii) These firefighters did not, however, make it above the 78th floor and the report of light fires is entirely consistent with the comparatively modest damage which occurred at this level.

(viii) If we look at the WTC modelling of the fire, this is quite clear; the greatest temperatures are found at 81 and 82, where the main impact occurred, and an area which firefighters never reached.

It is, however, a disingenious - some would say culpably misleading - account of the facts to suggest that the fires in WTC2 were light.

 

[TheArchitect]

Right, moving swiftly along:

3. Not quite, but it's a strong factor, especially when you consider that there was no inferno either. 4. Perhaps it's a reason why none of these skyscrapers fell, not least the Windsor Building in Madrid. All those fires are dramatic infernos which burned brighter and far longer than anything on Sept 11. and the Windsor building was of inferior construction to the WTC.

(i) Let's be quite clear here. In both towers a significant quantity of jet fuel exploded, in turn setting alight the contents. NIST fire modelling confirms what those of us already trained in areas such as fire engineering would have expected; widespread fires across multiple floorplates.

(ii) There is absolutely no doubt that normal fires can cause failure of unprotected steel structures. If you disagree, I can post you chapter and verse from a wide range of research groups as well as pre 9/11 building regulations from around the world.

(iii) To claim that no other tower block has failed due to fire is a strawman; no other steel framed towers had been hit by fast moving, fully fueled jets leading to severe structural damage and widespread fires across multiple floor plates. Similarly no oter tower blocks employed the comparatively lightweight "tube within a tube" structural system employed at WTC.

(iv) There are major differences between the Windsor fire and WTC. No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning. It was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys.

Most significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was wholly different to that of the WTC. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Check for yourself:

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. Photos confirm that the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire confirm? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and that’s about it.

 

[TheArchitect]

Moving swiftly along, you've not actually answered the question about collapsed material being ejected, saving for a single photograph bereft of any text.

Would you like to produce something specific, in order that you don't have to worry about my "misrepresenting" your views?

 

[TheArchitect]

7. It's hardly an ambiguous term, is it? Am I going to say 'pyroclastic' when I'm ordering fish and chips? "would you like pyroclastic sauce on that?" er no.

Okay, let's be quite clear on what a pyroclastic flow is, shall we:

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

Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast-moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Volumes range from a few hundred cubic metres to more than a thousand cubic kilometres, and the larger ones can travel for hundreds of kilometres although none on that scale have occurred for several hundred thousand years. Most flows are around one to ten cubic kilometres and travel for several kilometres. Flows usually consist of two parts: the basal flow hugs the ground and contains larger, coarse boulders and rock fragments, while an ash cloud rises above it because of the turbulence between the flow and the overlying air.

While moving, the kinetic energy of the boulders will flatten trees and buildings in their path. The hot gases and high speed make them particularly lethal. For example, the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy were famously engulfed by pyroclastic flows in 79 AD with heavy loss of life, and in June 1997 flows killed 20 people on the Caribbean island of Montserrat

Now if you can just explain to me where the evidence is for the dust and debris cloud scalding people alive in its path, demolishing buildings, and so on then we can discuss this part of your theory a bit further.

 

[tarannau]

This is a bit of a mismatch isn't it?

One bloke parroting a discredited paper and home-teaching himself complex architectural principles based largely on info from conspiracy-favouring websites. And one bloke, qualified in the field, who knows what he's talking about.

TheArchitect's obviously a FBI-sponsored disinformation bot of course...

 

[TheArchitect]

6. Here'a page with quotes on the flashes, and also a good video where you can hear the 'pops'. Evidence of demolition charges in WTC2 for example

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." [Karin Deshore - Captain (E.M.S.)]"

And all courtesy of Whatreallyhappened.com, a web site which has been shown time and time again to play free and easy with the facts.

[sigh]

Right, lets take a look at this:

(i) A clear problem is the interviewees who claim that the flashes and explosions were seen on the lowest floors, in advance of the collapse of the upper floors. Why is this a problem? Well because we've got video evidence which confirms that there were no such widespread explosions, and also that the collapse initiated at the impact floors.

(ii) Then we have the video which purports to show "the pops" but does no such thing, even when we crank it up to full screen. Yes, there is dust and debris ejecta immediately below the collapse but we'll come to that in a minute.

(iii) Re-read the page, and other similar accounts. Note how many say "like explosions" or "originally thought it was explosions". Very few, if any, say they thought they actually saw or heard explosives and there's certainly no video or audio evidence of same.

How many witnesses who talk of bombs, detonators and so on, had experience they could use as a comparison? How many would know what a bomb might sound like in that environment, and how it would different from the sound of a collapse?

If thousands of tons of a burning building were to collapse onto the floor below, then steel columns will fail, there will be a loud boom (or perhaps several), debris will fly out, flames will be pushed into the air. How are witnesses going to describe this, without using words like "explosion", or "bomb"? Given that by this time most people realised it was a terrorist attack, is it at all surprising that some may even have believed (at the time) that bombs were involved?

(iv) Now lets turn to the ejecta immediately below the collapse "front". The most obvious explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they collapsed, pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the lift and services shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris.

In effect the floors acted like a plunger in a syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core.

 

[TheArchitect]

8. I've already discussed my definition of 'near free-fall' and my conclusion is that the falling floors were scarcely impeded on the way down. This would be easily explained by CD, because the lower floors would be taken out as the upper floors fell.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to press you for a more comprehensive explanation of your position.

(i) The towers did not collapse at free fall speed; quite the contrary - both took longer than the circa 9.0-9.5 seconds we would expect. This is confirmed if we watch the various videos of the collapse, when large sections of debris hit the ground (and surrounding buildingings) well in advance of the collapse itself.

(ii) Now I suspect that you're claiming that the lower structure should have significantly slower or even arrested the upper portion of the building as it happily accelerated downwards at 9.8m/s-2. In considering such a scenario, we have to look at the dynamic loads imposed on the lower structure when not 1, or 2, but multiple upper floors and hence significant mass impacted.

From an engineering perspective, there is simply no way that the floors would provide anything like the resistance required to have a noticeable effect. We simply don't design structures (and joints in particular) to take that kind of punishment.

Frank Greening - and I assume you must be familiar with his work - does a good job of demonstrating a very simplified version of this. I have yet to see an CTer come up with something similar in quality, but do look forward to your posting something more substantial than your unqualified opinion.

 

[TheArchitect]

Don't misrepresent me - I quote that article to make out that Fire Engineering considered the investigation second-rate - in response to Detective-Boy who was considering that the reports of explosions would have been properly investigated. Interesting that you are the one readily making assumptions to fit. Maybe you should read a bit more closely.

No, sorry, you're cherry picking.

You have used the Fire Engineering piece to suggest that there is serious professional doubt about the official investigation. When we read the piece you link to this seems to be the case.....BUT......when we then read the link in Fire Engineering it becomes immediately apparent that this is not the case. Fire Engineering have concerns about some specific aspects of the case, in particular related to the fire fighting effort and protection of structural elements.

Let's look at some other Fire Engineering quotes, just to be sure:

The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes

Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.

His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=FYI&ARTICLE_ID=184582

Then there's:

THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING

In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.

City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...on=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=213202&VERSION_NUM=1&p=25

In short, Manning does say that there are problems, but not of the type which you suggest. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on.

Not quite the smoking gun you would like the casual reader to believe, is it?

 

[TheArchitect]

Just to add some bits and bobs, save you pursuing unproductive aspects.

I suspect that you're going to claim that black smoke is a sign of a weak fire.

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke.

According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

 

[Jazzz]

And all courtesy of Whatreallyhappened.com, a web site which has been shown time and time again to play free and easy with the facts.

[sigh]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of this site?

Right, lets take a look at this:

(i) A clear problem is the interviewees who claim that the flashes and explosions were seen on the lowest floors, in advance of the collapse of the upper floors. Why is this a problem? Well because we've got video evidence which confirms that there were no such widespread explosions, and also that the collapse initiated at the impact floors.

(ii) Then we have the video which purports to show "the pops" but does no such thing, even when we crank it up to full screen. Yes, there is dust and debris ejecta immediately below the collapse but we'll come to that in a minute.

(iii) Re-read the page, and other similar accounts. Note how many say "like explosions" or "originally thought it was explosions". Very few, if any, say they thought they actually saw or heard explosives and there's certainly no video or audio evidence of same.

I don't accept your comment about video evidence disproving the testimonies I linked to. The 'pops' are heard if not seen on the video featured (a curious 'crackling' sound perhaps starting before the collapse itself). Of course the collapse occurred at the impact floors - it had to, whether it was collapsing due to the official theory, or collapsing due to CD made to look like the official theory. The weakest straw man is that CD is somehow disproved because the collapse didn't happen at the bottom.

How many witnesses who talk of bombs, detonators and so on, had experience they could use as a comparison? How many would know what a bomb might sound like in that environment, and how it would different from the sound of a collapse?

We've been over this: they claimed what they could - their testimonies are perfectly in keeping with the presence of bombs. And we certainly have audio evidence of one very large explosion.

If thousands of tons of a burning building were to collapse onto the floor below, then steel columns will fail, there will be a loud boom (or perhaps several), debris will fly out, flames will be pushed into the air. How are witnesses going to describe this, without using words like "explosion", or "bomb"? Given that by this time most people realised it was a terrorist attack, is it at all surprising that some may even have believed (at the time) that bombs were involved?

There are many reports of explosions before the collapse, and then there are comments on the collapse itself being like a controlled demolition.

(iv) Now lets turn to the ejecta immediately below the collapse "front". The most obvious explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they collapsed, pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the lift and services shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris.

In effect the floors acted like a plunger in a syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core.

You're having a laugh if you think this baloney explains the horizontal ejection of huge steel beams.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to press you for a more comprehensive explanation of your position.

(i) The towers did not collapse at free fall speed; quite the contrary - both took longer than the circa 9.0-9.5 seconds we would expect. This is confirmed if we watch the various videos of the collapse, when large sections of debris hit the ground (and surrounding buildingings) well in advance of the collapse itself.

(ii) Now I suspect that you're claiming that the lower structure should have significantly slower or even arrested the upper portion of the building as it happily accelerated downwards at 9.8m/s-2. In considering such a scenario, we have to look at the dynamic loads imposed on the lower structure when not 1, or 2, but multiple upper floors and hence significant mass impacted.

From an engineering perspective, there is simply no way that the floors would provide anything like the resistance required to have a noticeable effect. We simply don't design structures (and joints in particular) to take that kind of punishment.

Frank Greening - and I assume you must be familiar with his work - does a good job of demonstrating a very simplified version of this. I have yet to see an CTer come up with something similar in quality, but do look forward to your posting something more substantial than your unqualified opinion.

I said they collapsed at 'near free-fall' speed. Please stop making out I have said something else. It's very close to free-fall because even if one floor will impede the debris falling on it by just a few percent, then that will multiply through to become a big difference in the collapse time. As it is, even the inertia of the floors having to be accelerated is going to slow the collapse. Let alone any resistance from the grounded structure. You forgot that.

Let's note that you haven't offered an explanation for the collapse of the central steels - which has indeed been my main argument against the official theory ever since I have been debating it.

 

[editor]

There are many reports of explosions before the collapse, and then there are comments on the collapse itself being like a controlled demolition.

Yes. From unqualified observers. And just because someone said that it 'looked' like a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean that it was one, just like people often mistake explosions for bombs. Or train crashes.

But I'd like to know why you continue to ignore the expert analysis of highly qualified, independent demolition professionals all over the world who have carefully examined and studied every aspect of the collapse in preference for a handful of comments from people with no knowledge of demolition whatsoever.

 

[Crispy]

You're having a laugh if you think this baloney explains the horizontal ejection of huge steel beams.

You are equally-a-chortle by suggesting that horizontal ejection of huge steel beams is evidence for CD. The energy levels involved once the collapse was underway would almost garuntee some horizontal movement, just in the random chaos of things. Compress a pencil in a vice and see how when it gives way, the shards go everywhere. Beside, in a nicely controlled demolition, you plan the charges to avoid such things.

 

[editor]

Let's note that you haven't offered an explanation for the collapse of the central steels - which has indeed been my main argument against the official theory ever since I have been debating it.

Until you can come up with a remotely sane and rational explanation as to how these invisible explosives were brought in to the building, carefully installed, wired and primed without a single soul out of of thousands seeing a thing, you have no argument whatsoever.

We've seen how much work is involved in preparing a large building for demolition, yet you keep on refusing to explain how they managed it.

 

[Jazzz]

No, sorry, you're cherry picking.

You have used the Fire Engineering piece to suggest that there is serious professional doubt about the official investigation. When we read the piece you link to this seems to be the case.....BUT......when we then read the link in Fire Engineering it becomes immediately apparent that this is not the case. Fire Engineering have concerns about some specific aspects of the case, in particular related to the fire fighting effort and protection of structural elements.

Let's look at some other Fire Engineering quotes, just to be sure:

Then there's:

In short, Manning does say that there are problems, but not of the type which you suggest. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on.

Not quite the smoking gun you would like the casual reader to believe, is it?

I don't know why I am having to repeat myself - I quoted the Fire Engineering article perfectly fairly. Detective-Boy was saying that the reports of explosions should have been investigated. Else, there would have been an error in the investigation. In order to show that there was such an error, I produced the Fire Engineering article, which makes clear that the investigation was utterly shoddy and involved the wholesale destruction of evidence and - with reasonable implication - let alone the investigation of bomb theories.

The article doesn't prove that controlled demolition took place, what it shows is that there wasn't any kind of proper investigation. This quote I will repeat - it speaks for itself

"As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. " Bill Manning, Fire Engineering

Nothing changed, and that's exactly what we are left with.

 

[WouldBe]

We've been over this: they claimed what they could - their testimonies are perfectly in keeping with the presence of bombs. And we certainly have audio evidence of one very large explosion.

There are many reports of explosions before the collapse,

That documentary made by the French brothers clearly has 'explosions' in it before the towers fell but these 'explosions' are bodies hitting the floor. Or are they manequins packed with explosive set in place by th USG?

 

[Jazzz]

Just to add some bits and bobs, save you pursuing unproductive aspects.

I suspect that you're going to claim that black smoke is a sign of a weak fire. <etc>

No, but I would claim that no flames and hardly any smoke is a sign of a weak fire. Like with the South Tower just before collapse.

I must congratulate you on a strategy that I haven't encountered before though TA. It may even prove successful. 'Boring the opponent into submission'

 

[editor]

"As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. " Bill Manning, Fire Engineering

Nothing changed, and that's exactly what we are left with.

But no-one - and I mean NO ONE - from Fire Engineering is even suggesting that it was a controlled demolition.

Your attempts to twist their professional concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation into some sort of evidence that a controlled demolition took place is a fucking disgrace.

 

[editor]

I must congratulate you on a strategy that I haven't encountered before though TA. It may even prove successful. 'Boring the opponent into submission'

What a cheap shot.

He's gone out of his way to tear apart your idiotic beliefs with well argued, point-by-point rebuttals and all you can do is try and belittle him.

But we both know that's because he's completely out-batted you, and your conspiraloon soundbites are no match for his solid, well researched, credibly sourced arguments.

 

[Jazzz]

You are equally-a-chortle by suggesting that horizontal ejection of huge steel beams is evidence for CD. The energy levels involved once the collapse was underway would almost garuntee some horizontal movement, just in the random chaos of things. Compress a pencil in a vice and see how when it gives way, the shards go everywhere. Beside, in a nicely controlled demolition, you plan the charges to avoid such things.

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

There is no way that a building falling down due to gravity will fling steel beams weighing hundreds of tons out horizontally like cannon shot, in my humble opinion.

 

[detective-boy]

Detective-Boy was saying that the reports of explosions should have been investigated.

As usual, selective quoting.

Can't be arsed to repeat what I actually said but if anyone is interested, go and read it. It isn't quite this straightforward.

 

[Jazzz]

But no-one - and I mean NO ONE - from Fire Engineering is even suggesting that it was a controlled demolition.

Your attempts to twist their professional concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation into some sort of evidence that a controlled demolition took place is a fucking disgrace.

I didn't say it was evidence that CD took place, twit

 

[editor]

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

There is no way that a building falling down due to gravity will fling steel beams weighing hundreds of tons out horizontally like cannon shot, in my humble opinion.

Hmm. Who to believe here?

The analysis of highly qualified structural engineers, metallurgists, engineers, investigation teams and demolition experts across the world or Jazzz's totally amateur, all-in-his-head, evidence-free hunch?

 

[editor]

I didn't say it was evidence that CD took place, twit

So you really don't have a single scrap of evidence for the controlled demolition "theory", yes?

 

[Jazzz]

Hmm. Who to believe here?

The analysis of highly qualified structural engineers, metallurgists, engineers, investigation teams and demolition experts across the world or Jazzz's totally amateur, all0in0his-head, evidence-free hunch?

Well, find one of those that claims that steel will fly around when you compress it to the point of failure. This was simply my opinion vs Crispy's, numbskull

 

[WouldBe]

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

Wood cracking and splintering shows it's not elastic. That's why you can bend steel into intricate shapes where you can't do the same with wood.

 

[Jazzz]

So you really don't have a single scrap of evidence for the controlled demolition "theory", yes?

oh do go away. I thought you had had enough of the thread anyway - you were all set to close it. It certainly won't be worth continuing if you are going to keep yapping on it.

 

[Crispy]

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

There is no way that a building falling down due to gravity will fling steel beams weighing hundreds of tons out horizontally like cannon shot, in my humble opinion.

But your opinion is demonstrably uninformed!

PS: Sorry, the vice example was not a good one - that is a static load, not a dynamic one. My bad.