WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?

[Q24]

Your claim that only the base case was "expected" is similar to claiming that only 5-5 is "expected". In fact, three times out of four you get something else. On your analogy, a more severe case of some sort is more probable that baseline, for instance.

I have never known anyone with such an ability to twist the most basic of concepts – claiming that anything which is “possible” is also “expected” as you are effectively doing isn’t going to fool anybody. The single most expected outcome in your example is 5 heads, as was the single most expected outcome of the WTC damage reflected in the base case – the one which used all best estimates based on available evidence and showed no collapse in the simulations.

But if both the baseline and severe cases give very good matches to the external damage, and you can't see the internal damage, how do you assess which case is better?

I don’t accept that simply describing the damage as “very good” is the best analysis that could be carried out. A detailed analysis could have identified precisely how “good” the simulated external damage was in comparison to the actual external damage. We know that NIST studied the WTC1 external damage well enough to determine that the base case provided a “better match” to the actual damage – I will mention again that is the case that showed no collapse.

Would you like me to explain what a calibration test is again?

What has the calibration test got to do with the fact that NIST’s sagging floor mechanism could not reproduce the level of bowing actually observed? What has it got to do with the fact that when the simulations did not predict the full bowing, NIST directly input this into areas of the façade based on what was actually observed? NIST’s sagging floor theory could not reproduce the witnessed event and therefore alternative mechanisms should have been explored.

I'd hate to distract you from your debates with Scott G, which I find immensely entertaining. You've found someone even better at confirmation bias than you are, and as for you getting banned from those forums...priceless.

Nice to see you taking an interest.

And "strain" in an engineering sense means?

Hint, it doesn't mean strength, as you again seem to think.

Do you have a relevant point or are you just being pedantic?

Only on your personal definition of "unexpected".

Expected is a case regarded as likely – the likely case is that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed. As I have proven, NIST demonstrate this in their investigation.

[flyingswan]

I have never known anyone with such an ability to twist the most basic of concepts – claiming that anything which is “possible” is also “expected” as you are effectively doing isn’t going to fool anybody. The single most expected outcome in your example is 5 heads, as was the single most expected outcome of the WTC damage reflected in the base case – the one which used all best estimates based on available evidence and showed no collapse in the simulations.

You are claiming that the baseline case is "expected" and that anything else is unexpected. My point is that the exact centre of a range of possibilities can have a small actual probability of happening, and is thus not "expected" is the sense you appear to be using the word. Even on the coin toss example you are using to give yourself probability figures, an outcome of "more heads than tails" is a lot more probable than "five of each". There is nothing "unexpected" about the actual impact parameters, as shown by the match to the visible damage, being more severe than the baseline.

I don’t accept that simply describing the damage as “very good” is the best analysis that could be carried out. A detailed analysis could have identified precisely how “good” the simulated external damage was in comparison to the actual external damage. We know that NIST studied the WTC1 external damage well enough to determine that the base case provided a “better match” to the actual damage – I will mention again that is the case that showed no collapse.

Sorting out which aspects of the damage are more significant for a rating system isn't a straightforward task. If you, or anyone on the conspiracist side, can come up with such a procedure, I'm sure NIST would be interested in hearing about it. Good luck.

What has the calibration test got to do with the fact that NIST’s sagging floor mechanism could not reproduce the level of bowing actually observed? What has it got to do with the fact that when the simulations did not predict the full bowing, NIST directly input this into areas of the façade based on what was actually observed? NIST’s sagging floor theory could not reproduce the witnessed event and therefore alternative mechanisms should have been explored.

First you say you don't want to discuss more than one point, now you do?

What NIST did was first to run simpler calibration models to find out how the forces due to the sagging floors related to the bowing of the walls, and then in their global model to use the visible bowing as an indicator of where the sagging floors were still attached to the outer walls and where they had broken away. They could have simply assumed that all floors were attached, which would have predicted greater bowing and made collapse more likely. Your claim that "the simulations did not predict full bowing" is a cherry-picked quote about only some of a range of simulations. Other cases in that range overestimated the bowing.

The whole point about the bowing is that it was an observed phenomena that fits in very well with the fires leading to a gradual collapse onset. The bowing is a major problem for any controlled demolition theory, which is why conspiracists try to ignore it.

Do you have a relevant point or are you just being pedantic?

This is another example of your ignorance of engineering. You take the 20% variation of failure strain, which you think is actually a measure of building strength, and suggest that it is somehow unreasonable. You do not know what an engineer means by "strain". It isn't strength, it's the amount by which a structure deflects when a force is applied to it. Failure strain is highly dependent on the rate at which the force is applied and not something you can estimate at all precisely.

Expected is a case regarded as likely – the likely case is that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed. As I have proven, NIST demonstrate this in their investigation.

See above for your misuse of the word "expected".

[Q24]

You are claiming that the baseline case is "expected" and that anything else is unexpected. My point is that the exact centre of a range of possibilities can have a small actual probability of happening, and is thus not "expected" is the sense you appear to be using the word. Even on the coin toss example you are using to give yourself probability figures, an outcome of "more heads than tails" is a lot more probable than "five of each". There is nothing "unexpected" about the actual impact parameters, as shown by the match to the visible damage, being more severe than the baseline.

As always, misrepresentation of my position. I am claiming that (on a scale): -

• The base case is most expected.
  
• The less severe and severe cases are most unexpected.
  
• The further moved from base case to severe cases, the less expected the situations become.
  

You can misleadingly compare a single possibility to a range of possibilities all you want, but the above is an accurate description of how NIST’s cases sit. This is very simple and I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to obfuscate the issue.

Sorting out which aspects of the damage are more significant for a rating system isn't a straightforward task. If you, or anyone on the conspiracist side, can come up with such a procedure, I'm sure NIST would be interested in hearing about it. Good luck.

It was NIST’s investigation - they failed.

First you say you don't want to discuss more than one point, now you do?

If you introduce additional points that are inaccurate then they will be addressed.

What NIST did was first to run simpler calibration models to find out how the forces due to the sagging floors related to the bowing of the walls, and then in their global model to use the visible bowing as an indicator of where the sagging floors were still attached to the outer walls and where they had broken away. They could have simply assumed that all floors were attached, which would have predicted greater bowing and made collapse more likely. Your claim that "the simulations did not predict full bowing" is a cherry-picked quote about only some of a range of simulations. Other cases in that range overestimated the bowing.

The whole point about the bowing is that it was an observed phenomena that fits in very well with the fires leading to a gradual collapse onset. The bowing is a major problem for any controlled demolition theory, which is why conspiracists try to ignore it.

We had this whole discussion over a year ago: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=128699&view=findpost&p=2363710

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.

This is another example of your ignorance of engineering. You take the 20% variation of failure strain, which you think is actually a measure of building strength, and suggest that it is somehow unreasonable. You do not know what an engineer means by "strain". It isn't strength, it's the amount by which a structure deflects when a force is applied to it. Failure strain is highly dependent on the rate at which the force is applied and not something you can estimate at all precisely.

“Strength” could be defined as the ability of the structure to withstand collapse. One question then: does the reduction in failure strain in the building model increase or decrease the chances of collapse? The fact is that NIST optimised all variables to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.

[MysticOnion]

I think that the towers falling is a very potent symbol.

If it was a Tarot reading the falling of the tower is ruin and desolation.

[flyingswan]

As always, misrepresentation of my position. I am claiming that (on a scale): -

• The base case is most expected.
  
• The less severe and severe cases are most unexpected.
  
• The further moved from base case to severe cases, the less expected the situations become.
  

You can misleadingly compare a single possibility to a range of possibilities all you want, but the above is an accurate description of how NIST’s cases sit. This is very simple and I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to obfuscate the issue.

But, as you have admitted, the actual impact was between the baseline and the severe, nearer the baseline for WTC1 and about halfway between for WTC2. This means that in both cases the baseline was an underestimate. Given this fact, there is not much to choose in "expectedness" between baseline and severe cases, they are similar distances from actuality.

It was NIST’s investigation - they failed.

If you want to claim that they didn't do something that they should have done, it is up to you to show that it is reasonable and possible for the omitted task to be done.

If you introduce additional points that are inaccurate then they will be addressed.

Ditto

We had this whole discussion over a year ago: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=128699&view=findpost&p=2363710

I know, so why start again?

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.

All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.

“Strength” could be defined as the ability of the structure to withstand collapse. One question then: does the reduction in failure strain in the building model increase or decrease the chances of collapse? The fact is that NIST optimised all variables to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.

That wasn't the question, the question was "do you think 20% uncertainty in failure strain is unreasonable". We have now established that the answer is "you had no idea what failure strain was, but 20% sounded a big number".

[Q24]

But, as you have admitted, the actual impact was between the baseline and the severe, nearer the baseline for WTC1 and about halfway between for WTC2. This means that in both cases the baseline was an underestimate. Given this fact, there is not much to choose in "expectedness" between baseline and severe cases, they are similar distances from actuality.

You make too many assumptions and there is no logic in your final statement. Given that I don’t feel the need to drag this very basic issue into detail further, or discuss your newly created word “expectedness”, I will accept your simple understanding that NIST’s severe case was not representative of the actual reality on 9/11.

If you want to claim that they didn't do something that they should have done, it is up to you to show that it is reasonable and possible for the omitted task to be done.

It seems you are claiming it was impossible for NIST to prove the WTC buildings should have collapsed on 9/11.

I know, so why start again?

Why are you asking me? You keep referencing the bowing.

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.

All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.

Yes, I’m sure we could get any “good” answer we want with a bit of tweaking.

That wasn't the question, the question was "do you think 20% uncertainty in failure strain is unreasonable". We have now established that the answer is "you had no idea what failure strain was, but 20% sounded a big number".

I answered that exact question back in my post #117 – please do keep up with the discussion. You have since been asking further questions all of which have been answered except the last because I got tired of their condescending nature. I think we have established that the answer is: -

“Reducing the failure strain of the building models makes the simulation more susceptible to producing collapse initiation. NIST reduced the failure strain of the building models, optimised other variables as far as possible toward favouring collapse and “tweaked their simulations” because that provided the only “good” answer. In doing so, NIST created a case that was not representative of the reality on 9/11.”

The information is all right there in your own posts if you care to look – you excuse it, I see it for what it is.

[flyingswan]

You make too many assumptions and there is no logic in your final statement. Given that I don’t feel the need to drag this very basic issue into detail further, or discuss your newly created word “expectedness”, I will accept your simple understanding that NIST’s severe case was not representative of the actual reality on 9/11.

Neither was the baseline case, the two cases bracketed the actuality. Your claim that the baseline was the only "expected" case is just your own wish.

It seems you are claiming it was impossible for NIST to prove the WTC buildings should have collapsed on 9/11.

I am happy that NIST have demonstrated a highly plausible collapse mechanism that is consistent with the available evidence. I don't see why they should do extra work to satisfy you, when you cannot demonstrate that such work is useful or possible.

Why are you asking me? You keep referencing the bowing.

I keep mentioning the bowing because you keep ignoring it. It is perhaps the single strongest evidence against your controlled demolition scenario.

Yes, I’m sure we could get any “good” answer we want with a bit of tweaking.

You "tweak" to get good results from calibration cases, then apply those same tweaks to the actual case.

I answered that exact question back in my post #117 – please do keep up with the discussion. You have since been asking further questions all of which have been answered except the last because I got tired of their condescending nature. I think we have established that the answer is: -

“Reducing the failure strain of the building models makes the simulation more susceptible to producing collapse initiation. NIST reduced the failure strain of the building models, optimised other variables as far as possible toward favouring collapse and “tweaked their simulations” because that provided the only “good” answer. In doing so, NIST created a case that was not representative of the reality on 9/11.”

The information is all right there in your own posts if you care to look – you excuse it, I see it for what it is.

I get a little tired of amateur engineers like you telling me how my job should be done, and when you come up with such an obvious example of your ignorance I like to emphasise the fact. You only found out what failure strain meant because I told you, but you are sure that NIST are being "not representative" by taking a 20% uncertainty. If you did not know what it was, how did you know that 20% uncertainty was "not representative"? Because you wanted it to be so. That is rather typical of your whole approach. You find any convoluted reason you can to ignore the evidence against your controlled demolition ideas, just as Scott G can think up any number of reasons to ignore a witness who doesn't agree with his flightpath ideas.

You both exempify confirmation bias in action.

[Q24]

Neither was the baseline case, the two cases bracketed the actuality. Your claim that the baseline was the only "expected" case is just your own wish.

Why do you attribute a false claim to me in nearly every post? Is it because you cannot reasonably dipute what I’m actually stating, so you have to make something up instead? Show me where I have ever said the base case is the “only” expected outcome. Stop making things up – it’s dishonest.

I am happy that NIST have demonstrated a highly plausible collapse mechanism that is consistent with the available evidence. I don't see why they should do extra work to satisfy you, when you cannot demonstrate that such work is useful or possible.

No, why ever should NIST have done the work to prove that the buildings should have collapsed. Granted it could be claimed that NIST’s work remained consistent with the evidence (that is, working around the evidence) but the investigation was certainly not supported by the available evidence. Just one example of which there are many (NCSTAR1-3C): -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

Whilst this does not necessarily oppose NIST’s study, it certainly is not supportive. Another area I find contentious is where NIST’s fire models show approximately 1,000^oC temperatures in locations where physical evidence was recovered showing no weakening of the steel – again, not necessarily contradictory but certainly unsupportive. Apart from the physical evidence, even the experiments actually carried out by NIST did not support the case. There is further not any precedent for what NIST concluded.

But sure, NIST did a job in keeping “consistent” with the evidence.

I keep mentioning the bowing because you keep ignoring it. It is perhaps the single strongest evidence against your controlled demolition scenario.

To say I ignore the bowing is a dishonest tactic yet again. Follow the link I provided above – the bowing is addressed.

You "tweak" to get good results from calibration cases, then apply those same tweaks to the actual case.

I have no doubt – we wouldn’t want to miss out on those “good” results. NIST first tweaked the calibration exercise and then tweaked where the results would be applied to cause bowing in their simulation – a tweaking of the tweaks if you will.

I get a little tired of amateur engineers like you telling me how my job should be done, and when you come up with such an obvious example of your ignorance I like to emphasise the fact.

You can’t be serious. It took numerous attempts just to drag you up to the point where you understood that NIST used the severe cases in their final simulations. You demonstrated that you could not even follow a most fundamental part of the report by continually claiming that NIST used the base case in their final analysis. You argued incessantly on this point until you were forced to admit that I was correct, and now look, you accept it like you never thought otherwise. You may be good at whatever it is you do and true I may be a layman in the area, but I am not incompetent when it comes to understanding of these issues.

You only found out what failure strain meant because I told you, but you are sure that NIST are being "not representative" by taking a 20% uncertainty. If you did not know what it was, how did you know that 20% uncertainty was "not representative"? Because you wanted it to be so. That is rather typical of your whole approach.

This is all just more fallacy and dishonesty from you. I have not said I do not know what failure strain is, nor have I incorrectly described failure strain. You nitpick about my use of the word “strength” and yet point blank refuse to answer the question which clearly demonstrates failure strain can be linked to “strength” as a general term.

Further, I do not “want” anything to be so – I am entirely neutral, barring where the evidence leads me. You mention confirmation bias, yet I am the one stating the base facts as they are found, ie NIST’s simulations do not conclusively prove that the Twin Towers should have collapsed or not either way. You are the one having to slant your views to believe that NIST somehow proved the case. The strange thing is that whilst you believe NIST proved their case sufficiently, you actually admit they did not when you say the actual reality was merely “bracketed”.

You are a classic victim of the George Orwell coined “doublethink”.

[flyingswan]

Why do you attribute a false claim to me in nearly every post? Is it because you cannot reasonably dipute what I’m actually stating, so you have to make something up instead? Show me where I have ever said the base case is the “only” expected outcome. Stop making things up – it’s dishonest.

Possibly your saying things like this gave me that impression:

I’m sure you mean to say “possible” rather than “expected” - whilst the severe case inputs were set to their maximum possible limits they certainly were not expected.

No, why ever should NIST have done the work to prove that the buildings should have collapsed. Granted it could be claimed that NIST’s work remained consistent with the evidence (that is, working around the evidence) but the investigation was certainly not supported by the available evidence. Just one example of which there are many (NCSTAR1-3C): -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

Whilst this does not necessarily oppose NIST’s study, it certainly is not supportive. Another area I find contentious is where NIST’s fire models show approximately 1,000^oC temperatures in locations where physical evidence was recovered showing no weakening of the steel – again, not necessarily contradictory but certainly unsupportive. Apart from the physical evidence, even the experiments actually carried out by NIST did not support the case. There is further not any precedent for what NIST concluded.

But sure, NIST did a job in keeping “consistent” with the evidence.

First, steel weakens before the microstructure is affected, second the fire models are for air temperatures, not steel temperatures. Third, for reasons we've discussed, the recovered samples are not necessarily from the heart of the fires. There is nothing there that contradicts the NIST findings. There were obviously large fires present, and fire weakens steel. Again, we've discussed this ad nauseam.

To say I ignore the bowing is a dishonest tactic yet again. Follow the link I provided above – the bowing is addressed.

You've certainly been avoiding it on this thread, which incidentally we seem to have thoroughly derailed and scared everyone else away from. I first mentioned it in post #110, you didn't respond until post #124.

I have no doubt – we wouldn’t want to miss out on those “good” results. NIST first tweaked the calibration exercise and then tweaked where the results would be applied to cause bowing in their simulation – a tweaking of the tweaks if you will.

As I've said before, I worked with computational models, I have no problems with that.

You can’t be serious. It took numerous attempts just to drag you up to the point where you understood that NIST used the severe cases in their final simulations. You demonstrated that you could not even follow a most fundamental part of the report by continually claiming that NIST used the base case in their final analysis. You argued incessantly on this point until you were forced to admit that I was correct, and now look, you accept it like you never thought otherwise. You may be good at whatever it is you do and true I may be a layman in the area, but I am not incompetent when it comes to understanding of these issues.

How long ago was that? I remember disputing your claim that NIST only ran more severe cases because the baseline didn't predict collapse, as opposed to incorporating the measurement uncertainty from the start when deciding what cases to run.

This is all just more fallacy and dishonesty from you. I have not said I do not know what failure strain is, nor have I incorrectly described failure strain. You nitpick about my use of the word “strength” and yet point blank refuse to answer the question which clearly demonstrates failure strain can be linked to “strength” as a general term.

I was hoping that you would actally research the subject yourself.

Failure strain is maximum distortion, it isn't strength, nor is it proportional to strength. You picked up that 20% figure because it looked big, then started claiming it meant 20% of strength. This is enough to show that you do not understand a fairly basic engineering concept.

For your future reference, strength is how much force an element can withstand before it breaks. Depending on the material and the circumstances, that break can occur at low strain or high strain. Something that breaks at the same force but a higher strain has the same strength, but greater toughness. It is this change in toughness with failure strain that changes the likelihood of collapse, not any change in strength.

Further, I do not “want” anything to be so – I am entirely neutral, barring where the evidence leads me. You mention confirmation bias, yet I am the one stating the base facts as they are found, ie NIST’s simulations do not conclusively prove that the Twin Towers should have collapsed or not either way. You are the one having to slant your views to believe that NIST somehow proved the case. The strange thing is that whilst you believe NIST proved their case sufficiently, you actually admit they did not when you say the actual reality was merely “bracketed”.

You are a classic victim of the George Orwell coined “doublethink”.

You may very well think that, but your championing of incredibly complicated controlled demolition theories for which evidence is somewhat lacking shows that you have a very personal slant on "facts as they are found". You dismiss everything that contradicts a controlled demolition by saying that it was a covert demolition, ie you can explain away any fact you don't want.

To repeat myself once again, I think that NIST proved their collapse mechanism because it matched the way that the actual collapses started. The sagging floors and bowing walls looked exactly like a fire-initiated collapse and nothing like a controlled demolition. As an engineer, I find this match to be very convincing, and that they had to invoke some plausible amount of measurement error to get their result is not important.

[businessclix]

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? [/b]

to destroy any shred of evidence

[KennyB]

BC, And to make sure all the asbestos was destroyed and the billdings could not be repaired. KennyB

[Q24]

You dismiss everything that contradicts a controlled demolition by saying that it was a covert demolition, ie you can explain away any fact you don't want.

I cannot help that the covert nature of the demolition was a necessity and is supported by all evidence.

To repeat myself once again, I think that NIST proved their collapse mechanism because it matched the way that the actual collapses started. The sagging floors and bowing walls looked exactly like a fire-initiated collapse and nothing like a controlled demolition. As an engineer, I find this match to be very convincing, and that they had to invoke some plausible amount of measurement error to get their result is not important.

There are alternatives to NIST’s mechanism and I don’t see that the collapse initiation could have looked any different no matter the cause. Whatever the cause of the actual damage to the columns, whether it be impact and fires or thermite and demolition charges, the collapse initiation would have looked the same. If you are referring to the bowing ‘matching’ the actual situation, we have already agreed that this was simply a tweaked input to the simulation by NIST and further their theory for the underlying cause has not been validated. You mention sagging floors yet there is no photographic evidence of this other than where WTC2 was impacted, ie not damage caused by the fires. If you are the sort of person (and I’m sure you are) that only cares for NIST’s admittedly pretty looking end result but are not prepared to honestly critique how that point was reached, then I can certainly see why you are satisfied.

[merril]

I cannot help that the covert nature of the demolition was a necessity and is supported by all evidence.

There are alternatives to NIST’s mechanism and I don’t see that the collapse initiation could have looked any different no matter the cause. Whatever the cause of the actual damage to the columns, whether it be impact and fires or thermite and demolition charges, the collapse initiation would have looked the same.

ZOMG (I just had to say that, at least once)

Read this and weep.

Study of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

(Swanny) If you are the sort of person (and I’m sure you are) that only cares for NIST’s admittedly pretty looking end result but are not prepared to honestly critique how that point was reached, then I can certainly see why you are satisfied.

Maybe you can show him how. Prepare a study equal to, and a rebuttal of, NIST WTC Report. Then, you can complain and others may listen.

[raoulduke666]

He got 1.8 billion and is suing for 3.5 because he feels he should get double (two planes, two towers, two payouts). I'm aware, quit assuming I'm an idiot. Strangely enough he's ended up losing out on the value because of this.

Only $1.8 billion? That sucks

[Corp]

So let me see if I have this correct. The owner of the twin towers didn't like that fact that the buildings were old and out of date. He wanted to bring them up to code and maybe improve on some of the buildings but was worried about the cost. So he thought about this problem and came to the logical conclusion that the best way to solve this problem was to hijack a bunch of planes and ram them into the buildings, killing thousands and starting a war.

Is that about right?

[Q24]

So let me see if I have this correct. The owner of the twin towers didn't like that fact that the buildings were old and out of date. He wanted to bring them up to code and maybe improve on some of the buildings but was worried about the cost. So he thought about this problem and came to the logical conclusion that the best way to solve this problem was to hijack a bunch of planes and ram them into the buildings, killing thousands and starting a war.

Is that about right?

No, you got it just about all wrong.

I mean, what you said would be silly now wouldn't it

But before I carry on… do you actually want to know the motives behind 9/11 and how Larry Silverstein, the buildings’ owner, was connected?

[Corp]

well just having the planes crash in the towers isnt good enough he need to make the towers fall down. And yes it was a conspiracy.

Not really. If his goal was to rebuild the towers then the planes would have been more than enough. After all you're not going to be able to easily repair that kind of damage. He could have easily made the arguement that too much damage had been done and that in the long run it was better to just rip everything down. There was no reason to have the towers come down that very day.

[acidhead]

Not really. If his goal was to rebuild the towers then the planes would have been more than enough. After all you're not going to be able to easily repair that kind of damage. He could have easily made the arguement that too much damage had been done and that in the long run it was better to just rip everything down. There was no reason to have the towers come down that very day.

Had the towers not collapsed what gives you the impression an argument could be made that they should be completely demolished?

Think about it.... after the N & S towers collapsed the whole WTC complex was destroyed... everything.

What was really amazing was how only the WTC complex building suffered complete destruction while surrounding buildings around the WTC complex never were completely destroyed.

This is where the issue of WTC 7 becomes interesting... not only did WTC 7 collapse after not being struck with an 737 airliner but it was located between two large buildings that did not get completely destroyed.

....wierd coincidence......

Before

After

[MID]

If the desired results of 9/11 (by a shadow government) were to usher in a new world order, begin a supposed martial law, rape american constitutional rights, cause a war, and frighten the american society into submission --

Those weren't the desired results.

The motive was Jihad. The desired result was death. The method was effective.

my one question is--

WHY did they NEED controlled demolition to bring down three buildings? Wouldn't the hijacking of planes and smashing them into the towers and blaming the Taliban be enough to begin their agenda?

The didn't need "controlled demolition". The hijacking of the airliners and flying the 250,000 pound fully fueled jets into structures at 700-800 feet per second was completely effective in doing what they wanted to do.

The towers would have still stood where they are,

Obviously not.

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

There was no controlled demolition.

The collapse of those towers is well understood. Frankly, it's amazing that people still sit around thinking of this nonsense 8 years later, and long after the mechanics of the collapses were completely explained...

Christ, on the morning of 9-11 I made a comment upon seeing the second aircraft hit the tower about evacuating everyone...and fast. When I was asked about why, I told the group of people I was with (business people, not engineers), "Because those floors are going to collapse and when they do, they're coming down." They thought I was nuts.

An hour later, they stared at me like I was some kind of prophet!

I fully recognized what I saw when a 200,000 pound jet slammed into a building with a full load of fuel on.

I also realized that no high rise building could possibly endure that amount of energy, and no one had ever contemplated such a thing as what happened on 9-11-01 when designing a high rise building. Structural degradation, heat, etc. could cause a floor to collapse, maybe even core structural supposts had been destroyed or critically weakened. One floor let's go, and the whole thing's going poof.

It doesn't take an engineeer to contemplate these potentials. A little science background, however, would be really helpful...

Controlled demolition. A more crazed idea has probably never been advanced...

Of course, most of us aren't architects or mechanical or civil or metallurgic engineers, so I suppose it's understandable, with the lack of science education we have in America today (and apparantly elsewhere as well), that many choose the low road of speculation and nonsensical assumption rather than the higher road of learning and understanding.

[mrbusdriver]

If indeed it was so obvious that the towers were CD'd, where is the outcry from at least some of the structural engineering community? The CD professionals? I'd be questioning my stance if I thought even 10% of these folks were suspicious. Surely there must be 10s of thousands of these trained professionals clamoring "inside job!!". Where are they?

For some reason, they apparently disagree with the CTs.

[KennyB]

mrbusdriver, How would you ever know if the CD people, the firemen or the police were talking about the collapsing of the buildings? With full media control, no word of such a thing would get to the outside world. It would remain as 'local rumor'. KennyB

[mrbusdriver]

mrbusdriver, How would you ever know if the CD people, the firemen or the police were talking about the collapsing of the buildings? With full media control, no word of such a thing would get to the outside world. It would remain as 'local rumor'. KennyB

What is this "full media control" you speak about? Here in the US?

If indeed there was a measurable portion of the professional communities asking questions about the BUSH administration's killing of thousands of our citizens, don't you think someone would at least study it, consider it? I think they have, and found there's nothing of substance to the conspiracy. It's not a credible theory.

Just the fact that the LC crowd has to keep changing it's arguments and re-releasing new editions of their video (as their factual errors come out) speaks volumes.

[mrbusdriver]

BC, And to make sure all the asbestos was destroyed and the billdings could not be repaired. KennyB

oh, and the asbestos wasn't "destroyed", it was spread all over hell and gone, along with all the other pulverized building materials generated in the collapses. Completely uncontained.

[Q24]

Christ, on the morning of 9-11 I made a comment upon seeing the second aircraft hit the tower about evacuating everyone...and fast. When I was asked about why, I told the group of people I was with (business people, not engineers), "Because those floors are going to collapse and when they do, they're coming down." They thought I was nuts.

It’s a shame that none of the people who carried out WTC building studies prior to 9/11 were as smart as you. It’s a tragedy that experienced fire fighters did not have half of your foresight. But, and this is my observation, it can be very easy for people to make up some story about what they ‘knew’ in hindsight. And you are “nuts” if you still believe the “floors” collapsed, ie the pancake theory - this has been completely rebutted by everyone on both sides of the argument for years. So even if your story were true, then you were still wrong.

If indeed it was so obvious that the towers were CD'd, where is the outcry from at least some of the structural engineering community? The CD professionals? I'd be questioning my stance if I thought even 10% of these folks were suspicious. Surely there must be 10s of thousands of these trained professionals clamoring "inside job!!". Where are they?

For some reason, they apparently disagree with the CTs.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

861 architectual and engineering professionals and 4,708 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

There are also former senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials. There are hundreds of pilots and aviation professionals. There are scholars and academics including physicists, chemists, university lecturers, mathematicians, science data analysts, historians, attorneys and many more. All of which doubt the official story and call for a new investigation. Even NIST’s own former head of Fire Science Division slated the official investigation of the WTC collapses and stated that their conclusion is questionable.

If indeed it was so obvious that the collapses were the result of impacts and fires, bearing in mind that silence in no way constitutes agreement, where is the support from the professional community?

[aquatus1]

It doesn't take an engineeer to contemplate these potentials. A little science background, however, would be really helpful...

I have to say though...I studied architecture and some engineering in college, and if you had sat me down and asked me to consider this scenario, I would not have predicted a collapse.

The thing of it is that a catastrophe of this kind was beyond my paradigm. If I was told there was a fire in the building, I would simply assume that it was a standard office fire, maybe even one that ran out of control, and even at that been confident that the redundancies in the construction would have been sufficient. I would never have dreamed that the entire almost full acre of floor space would go up all at once in a massive conflagration.

I wouldn't have been able to imagine how all the insulation would have been removed from the surfaces they were designed to protect. Perhaps, if someone had suggested an explosion, one so powerful it ripped the solid foam insulation from the steel trusses, then yes, but such an explosion would also have done some serious structural damage, and there would be little to no danger of a fire, being that such explosions tend to blow themselves out.

But even if I was told to imagine all the insulation gone, the entire floor on fire, all the insulation stripped, massive structural damage...I'm still not sure I would have predicted a collapse. Such a thing was so beyond my knowledge, so contrary to everything I studied...Yes, I could have, reluctantly, admitted that perhaps a structural collapse was possible, but I really wouldn't have believed it; it would have been nothing more than an academic disclaimer.

I had to review the report in order to convince me that what happened happened. Engineers around the world, numbering in the thousands, did the same. When all was said and done, there was little that could be done other than to say that, yes...that explained it. Whether or not things actually happened the way NIST claims, their report was nonetheless valid, and it did provide an answer perfectly in keeping with what is known of engineering. The obstacle was not in our knowledge, but in our paradigm.

I'm not going to argue with people who believe that tens of thousands of engineers around the world don't know their business well enough to determine if the NIST explanation was invalid, let alone bunk, nuts, or any of the more colorful descriptions some here have given it. I'm still waiting for the outcome. If it turns out that there was some sort of controlled demolition, I will be very interested in reading it. I can think of no way in which it would have happened, but then, I though the exact same way before, when my theoretical younger self was asked about the WTC towers collapsing.