WTC7

[Q24]

It's just ridiculous.

You said it.

There was one bit of sense you touched on: -

If we blow them all at once THEY'LL KNOW we did it

You attempted to make it comical, but the logic is without doubt.

[Stundie]

Pretty ironic to me that people use the explosive sounds as supposed evidence for demolition when they were pretty much reported over the span of the entire day. I mean seriously? Who sets off demolition charges hours before bringing the building down?

I'm not sure who was setting them off hours before hand, but there are numerous reports and eyewitnesses to the fact of explosions at WTC7.

10:50am Rose Arce reports people running from another explosion from another building about 2 block away from the WTC Just before 40 mins into the video.

11:07am Allan Frank said that at about 10:45 there was another explosion About 14:00 mins into the video

15:21pm Rose Acre tells the anchor that every so often they hear explosions followed by falling debris and that firefighters can't get close to the building (WTC7) because of falling debris.

And of course there is this....

Unless there is a source for these explosions, then explosive devices can't be ruled out.

[Czero 101]

In your dreams

All of the quotes are readily available online. I have previously verified that every one of those quotes has a legitimate source – these are video records, official interviews, on scene media reports. To sweep them aside as possibly not “accurate or even real” just because I haven’t put a name/source to them in my post, it just shows lack of investigation and interest on your part.

You provided the list, so yes, it was your responsibility to provide "full evidence".

How can we take your views here seriously with the lack of research displayed?

I researched the ones I was able to. Some of the unnamed ones you provided did show up in my searches, but they were similarly unnamed in those results as well.

All you do is rush to write it off – you don’t care for the record or evidence or what really occurred. That is the difference between OCTs and ‘truthers’… the first don’t care, whereas the latter have trawled countless information in pursuit of understanding and have a better idea than most of the full evidence.

I will grant you that it is probably true that people on both sides of the fence have interpreted evidence through the filter of their own beliefs. You're guilty of it, just as much as anyone else.

I took the 4 quotes that you provided that were attributed to specific people and found what evidence I could and provided my interpretations along with other source material that.

You might say that it’s my job to provide the full evidence

And I'd be right, too...

but I would say it’s each person’s duty to inform themselves.

So you're telling me that if I were to provide a list of 20 or so anonymous quotes that claim there were no explosives, or that claim that your "false flag" theory was bunk, you wouldn't be breathing down my neck to provide the actual source and circumstance of those quotes, and would actually do my "homework" for me....?

Please....

It is sufficient to warrant an investigation for the use of explosive materials. In fact, that is just standard fire code practice… not carried out by the official investigation. Such possibilities needed to be ruled out, not ignored. How do we get confirmation or determine facts without looking?

Sure... but did you miss the part where the person being quoted actually said that he later found that it was the sound of the floors collapsing he was hearing, not explosives...?

Funny how its one of the same people that I originally pointed out as being constantly mis-quoted by the "Explosionists"...

Which brings me back to the very first question (the one where I supposedly misinterpreted your intention): -

And my position hasn't changed. Some of the "sounds of explosions" could have been and probably were elevators crashing.

How does an elevator car explain the numerous explosions reported at different levels long after the impacts? It doesn’t appear possible that the relatively low temperatures in the core caused a continuous/steady stream of falling elevator cars.

Straw man. I have not ever, nor am I now claiming that elevators were responsible for ALL the "sounds of explosions", so please, do get over it...

You provided over 20 quotes. I said that elevators could account for 2.

Even if we just look at the 4 that were attributable to real people, that's still only 2 that could have been elevators.

Is it definitive? Nope... but then again, unlike you, I have never claimed that my ideas were the only possible explanation(s). There could be (and probably are) other explanations for the "sounds of explosions". Some could be real, actual explosions that don't involve "bombs" or "secondary explosives / devices". Do I know what those other things could have been? Not off the top of my head, but I'm fairly sure there would be things present in an office tower that aren't actual "bombs" or "secondary explosives / devices" that could explode given the right circumstances

I understand why some elevator cars would fall at the time of impact, with the aircraft severing the cables. But why a time after that, i.e. later when firefighters were in the building and as Evans reported “an hour later”?

I'm sure there are many different reasons why the elevators may have fallen at different times.

Perhaps their cables weren't completely severed at impact and they "hung on" for a while.

Perhaps the elevator shafts were "deformed" by the impact and the cars were "stuck" until the sometime later as shafts "opened" as the structure weakened and shifted?

There was no one directing the evacuation, so perhaps some elevators were overloaded and fell because of that.

And would a reporter standing a safe distance, blocks away, really interpret a falling elevator car as a “big explosion”. It is dubious in the extreme.

Each tower had over 100 elevator cars. Some ran the entire height of the buildings, others only ran only in certain sections or zones of the towers. How many times in the past has an elevator car fallen from 70 - 90 floors to impact in a sub-basement, and how many reporters would be able to tell the difference between the resulting impact and a conventional explosion from blocks away?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

No, you are not correct.

Then, you must understand that they are not demolition experts. I have provided the specifics on what it takes to bring down a building in a certain way. People think that you can just place explosives in a steel-framed building and it is going to collapse the way they want. Remember, a steel-framed building is not affected in the same way as a wood-framed building, and I posted the photos to show that even though steel-framed buildings were bombed, they still remained standing whereas a wood-framed building would have been blown apart.

To demolish a steel-framed building you must pre-weaken the structure and the explosives must remain securely attached to the structure otherwise don't expect the building to collapse the way you want and as I have said before, it takes many weeks of planning and preparation just to demolish a steel-framed building smaller than the WTC buildings and because not all steel-framed building are built of the same designs is another reason why it takes long-termed planning and preparation. To think that you can just place explosives in a steel-framed building and expect to blow it to pieces is pure Hollywood stuff.

It would have taken many months to pre-weaken and prepare the WTC buildings for demolition, a process that could not have been done without disturbing normal operations within the WTC buildings. Any explosives attached to structural beams above the 77th floors would have either been dislodged from the structural beams after the impacts and would not have been effective in blowing apart the structure because once again, the explosives must remained attached to structural beams to be effective and that is if the explosives were not already detonated by the impacts and resulting fires.

Despite what some may think, thermite is a very poor and ineffective substitute for the C4 explosive, which is normally used by demolition companies, so why did someone come along and claim that thermite was used to bring down WTC buildings? Because someone found traces of thermite within the building, but the thermite can come from other sources, so finding thermite was not evidence by any means that explosives were used. I posted those videos where 175 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a small steel box beam despite care in packing the material around the beam and another case where 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to burn a vehicle in half and yet we are lead to believe that thermite is what brought down the WTC buildings.

People need to get away from the Hollywood frame of mind in regards to the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited April 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I'm not sure who was setting them off hours before hand, but there are numerous reports and eyewitnesses to the fact of explosions at WTC7.

10:50am Rose Arce reports people running from another explosion from another building about 2 block away from the WTC Just before 40 mins into the video.

11:07am Allan Frank said that at about 10:45 there was another explosion About 14:00 mins into the video

15:21pm Rose Acre tells the anchor that every so often they hear explosions followed by falling debris and that firefighters can't get close to the building (WTC7) because of falling debris.

And of course there is this....

Unless there is a source for these explosions, then explosive devices can't be ruled out.

People who have never heard a real bomb explosion can easily confuse other sounds as explosions.

[booNyzarC]

It's just ridiculous.

You said it.

There was one bit of sense you touched on: -

If we blow them all at once THEY'LL KNOW we did it...

You attempted to make it comical, but the logic is without doubt.

No, the logic isn't without doubt.

It just illustrates how ludicrous the whole notion of using these noises to support any kind of controlled demolition actually is.

And I'm sorry, but the controlled demolition theories are comical -- in a very sad and disappointing way.

[skyeagle409]

So you disagree with the NIST report then??

One of the reasons is that firefighters knew that WTC 7 was coming down based on what they observed and hearing from WTC 7.

Are you going to petition them and tell them they are wrong in their conclusions in how the WTC7 collapsed?

I am sure that NIST knows that others have disagreed with them as well, but those folks are also in agreement with the NIST that explosives were not responisible for the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.

Not serious enough for them to conclude that it was a contributing factor the to collapses I'm afraid. And some of the police and firefighters thought it was being blown up.

There were those who thought they heard explosives only to learn later that the sounds they thought were explosions were from something else.

Cause they never bothered looking for them, you said so yourself.

They would not have had to look very hard for explosives at all because there would have been detonation cords and other evidence spread all over the place and again, there was no way to properly prepare any of the WTC buildings for demolition without disrupting normal operations.

Yes, news reports indicate that fire fighters couldn't get next to the building because of explosions and rubble falling from the building very early on.

During the early hours after an attacks on the scale of 9/11, you can expect mass confusion and bad information to fly on the airwaves.

I think there are a couple of reports but as the NIST state, this wasn't the reason why the building collapsed.

In the same tone, they also said that explosives were not responsible. When firefighters saw that bulge, that was an indication that the building was very unsafe and in danger of collapsing and the sounds they heard was another indictor

WTC 5 & 6 both suffered more damage didn't collapse.

There are other circumstances that can explain that as well.

Edited April 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[bee]

Pretty ironic to me that people use the explosive sounds as supposed evidence for demolition when they were pretty much reported over the span of the entire day. I mean seriously? Who sets off demolition charges hours before bringing the building down?

Cheney: Okay, blow charge number 342, but only charge number 342, on my mark...

Croney: But boss, that won't bring the building down...

Cheney: Shut up and do what I say! If we blow them all at once THEY'LL KNOW we did it...

Croney: Okay boss...

Cheney: Three... Two... One... MARK!

Croney: ba-ba-BOOM!

Cheney: Alright, now wait a few minutes and we'll blow charges 17, 48, and 251!

Croney: When do we light the thermite?

Cheney: When I say so! Now shut up and do what I say or I won't take you with me on that hunting trip next week!

It's just ridiculous.

I enjoyed that post....

although I would have enjoyed it more with a few muahahahahahahahahahahahas in...

.

[booNyzarC]

I enjoyed that post....

although I would have enjoyed it more with a few muahahahahahahahahahahahas in...

.

I'm glad you enjoyed it bee

[Wandering]

They would not have had to look very hard for explosives at all because there would have been detonation cords and other evidence spread all over the place and again, there was no way to properly prepare any of the WTC buildings for demolition without disrupting normal operations.

Must have gone round your bowl once Skyeagle, you're back on Det cords. Do explosives need Det Cords? No? Good. *Snip*

Normal Operations? Perhaps you can inform me of this....At what % capacity was WTC 1&2 operating at the day of the collapse? How many companies had offices in the building and how many employees did they employee? How many floors were actually occupied?

As we know ENTIRE FLOORS were empty. You repeatedly ignore this in favour of putting forth an idea which is factually, incorrect.

During the early hours after an attacks on the scale of 9/11, you can expect mass confusion and bad information to fly on the airwaves.

Really? Looked pretty accurate to me when the newsreader said WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did.

Unless that's been solved, another 'coincidence' to add to the wall for the Official Story Adherents. Gee... That walls getting real full.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Karlis
3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

[skyeagle409]

Must have gone round your bowl once Skyeagle, you're back on Det cords. Do explosives need Det Cords? No? Good. *Snip*

Anything associated with explosives, and yet, no one piece of evidence was ever found in any of the wreckages of the WTC buildings..

Normal Operations? Perhaps you can inform me of this....At what % capacity was WTC 1&2 operating at the day of the collapse?

Question should have been, how many people were inside each WTC buildings before the impacts? Apparently, there were hundreds of people in those buildings.

How many companies had offices in the building and how many employees did they employee? How many floors were actually occupied?

Question should have been, how many people were killed as a direct as a result of the 9/11 attacks? You are not asking the right questions.

As we know ENTIRE FLOORS were empty.

That is moot by they fact that thousands of people were killed.

Really? Looked pretty accurate to me when the newsreader said WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did.

It is not so much as what the newsreader said, it is more about reality. We saw how the 9/11 Truthers confused a Delta B-767 and a KC-135 as United 93 and the passengers of that KC-135 as passengers of United 93. We later found that the 9/11 Truthers misquoted comments of those who made statements to the press. For an example, they claimed that United 93 landed in Cleveland and that passengers were taken somewhere else.

They misquoted the coroner at Shanksville who then slammed the 9/11 Truthers for misquoting his comments. Then, we have the C-130 pilot who piloted the aircraft that followed American 77 was surprised that the 9/11 Truthers mismanaged themselves about his aircraft. Next, the 9/11 Truthers confused a white business jet as a military aircraft to where the owners of that aircraft had to correct the 9/11 Truthers again.

I am sure you remember the 9/11 Truthers claiming that a pod was attached to United 175. How silly of them to think that the pod they thought was modified and added to United 175 were fairings that are standard on ALL B-767s and are located in the general area where the main landing gears operate and included the main landing gear doors. I was surprised that someone came up with such a silly story.

It goes on and on and on and each claim has been taken apart by the evidence, piece by piece.

Edited April 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

No, the logic isn't without doubt.

• The logic, that detonating a string of explosive charges altogether would reveal the demolition, is without doubt.
  
• The logic, that detonating explosive charges at intervals would assist to disguise the demolition, is without doubt.
  

I know that you don’t need this explaining; a child could understand.

Then again, I will spell it out - the aim is to avoid the appearance of a conventional demolition that would be instantly recognisable.

Your disagreement with this logic appears to be for the sake of disagreement itself.

[booNyzarC]

• The logic, that detonating a string of explosive charges altogether would reveal the demolition, is without doubt.
  
• The logic, that detonating explosive charges at intervals would assist to disguise the demolition, is without doubt.
  

I know that you don’t need this explaining; a child could understand.

Then again, I will spell it out - the aim is to avoid the appearance of a conventional demolition that would be instantly recognisable.

Your disagreement with this logic appears to be for the sake of disagreement itself.

No, the logic is that if it were a controlled demolition, charges would be detonated together. You are so desperate to find evidence of a demolition that you are willing to hold up any old thing in support of the notion. When the reality is exposed that these bangs do not fit the expected intervals or loudness for a controlled demolition, it becomes an unconventional controlled demolition in your mind because they musta' dunnit'.

There are literally tens if not hundreds of different things which could cause loud bangs like those that were heard. Many of those things include explosions. In a disaster of this magnitude in buildings of this scale, such sounds would be expected. But to you it is a sign of unconventional controlled demolition 'cuz they musta' dunnit'.

[flyingswan]

No, the logic is that if it were a controlled demolition, charges would be detonated together. You are so desperate to find evidence of a demolition that you are willing to hold up any old thing in support of the notion. When the reality is exposed that these bangs do not fit the expected intervals or loudness for a controlled demolition, it becomes an unconventional controlled demolition in your mind because they musta' dunnit'.

It's the all-purpose unfalsifyable argument for demolition. Any evidence that looks like a demolition is proof that it was a demolition. Any evidence that doesn't look like a demolition is proof that it was an unconventional demolition. There is thus no evidence left to prove that it wasn't a demolition, therefore it was.

Q24 has been proposing versions of this for years, but appears unable to appreciate the logical problem with it.

[Q24]

No, the logic is that if it were a controlled demolition, charges would be detonated together.

What an absurd idea.

I can imagine you planning a covert demolition now…

“I want a banner that rolls down the building with the word ‘DEMOLITION’ I’ve seen them do it on TV before, and then fire off those charges altogether boom- boom- boom- boom- boom, rig us up some fireworks too whooosh, send out the invitations, tell the world, it’s gonna be great!”

Just my joke… I hope.

Yet it does appears you miss the task objective (keyword: “covert”) that necessitates from the start the demolition must be unconventional. Flyingswan has never understood this simple fact and tries to apply an entirely conventional demolition to the theory, thus why he gets easily confused in how the evidence supports the case.

[booNyzarC]

What an absurd idea.

I can imagine you planning a covert demolition now…

“I want a banner that rolls down the building with the word ‘DEMOLITION’ I’ve seen them do it on TV before, and then fire off those charges altogether boom- boom- boom- boom- boom, rig us up some fireworks too whooosh, send out the invitations, tell the world, it’s gonna be great!”

Just my joke… I hope.

Yet it does appears you miss the task objective (keyword: “covert”) that necessitates from the start the demolition must be unconventional. Flyingswan has never understood this simple fact and tries to apply an entirely conventional demolition to the theory, thus why he gets easily confused in how the evidence supports the case.

The notion that any kind of controlled demolition, covert or otherwise, caused the collapses of those buildings is what is absurd.

No, the logic is that if it were a controlled demolition, charges would be detonated together. You are so desperate to find evidence of a demolition that you are willing to hold up any old thing in support of the notion. When the reality is exposed that these bangs do not fit the expected intervals or loudness for a controlled demolition, it becomes an unconventional controlled demolition in your mind because they musta' dunnit'.

There are literally tens if not hundreds of different things which could cause loud bangs like those that were heard. Many of those things include explosions. In a disaster of this magnitude in buildings of this scale, such sounds would be expected. But to you it is a sign of unconventional controlled demolition 'cuz they musta' dunnit'.

[Q24]

The notion that any kind of controlled demolition, covert or otherwise, caused the collapses of those buildings is what is absurd.

That’s a nice hollow statement of opinion. Would you like to share your reasons? I suspect you fail to explain your opinion because it would show that in actual fact there is nothing absurd about the notion of the demolition at all; it is entirely viable.

[booNyzarC]

That’s a nice hollow statement of opinion. Would you like to share your reasons? I suspect you fail to explain your opinion because it would show that in actual fact there is nothing absurd about the notion of the demolition at all; it is entirely viable.

Absurdity and viability are not directly related. It is viable to demolish buildings. It is viable to orchestrate a false flag attack in which airplanes are allowed to fly into buildings. It is absurd to crash airplanes into buildings and then covertly demolish them on the same day. Crashing airplanes into those buildings was sufficient to initiate a military response in itself.

If you want to tout some conspiracy theory that Neocons and Zionists intentionally allowed or even facilitated the airplanes, feel free. That idea is nutty enough in itself, but when you add in this demolition BS it becomes beyond absurd. It becomes downright ludicrous. By the way, I'm not validating the viability of this ludicrous notion by pointing this out. I don't find it viable that WTC 1 and 2 had been covertly packed with demolition charges prior to the event and then miraculously initiated collapse within the impact zones. And even though it may be considered viable for WTC 7 to have been covertly packed beforehand, it would have been completely unnecessary to accomplish the ends of the conspiracy theory you hold onto.

If you want to talk about viability, it is completely viable that WTC 1 and 2 came down as a direct result of the plane impacts and ensuing fires, and that WTC 7 came down as a direct result of impact damage from debris and ensuing fires. It is, in fact, more than just viable. Given that the fires went completely uncontested it was inevitable. This is not absurd. This is not ludicrous. This is simply reality as dictated by the laws of physics and how they apply to the construction of these buildings.

[skyeagle409]

That's a nice hollow statement of opinion. Would you like to share your reasons? I suspect you fail to explain your opinion because it would show that in actual fact there is nothing absurd about the notion of the demolition at all; it is entirely viable.

BooN is right on the money and to underline that message, where is YOUR evidence that he is wrong?

[Q24]

Absurdity and viability are not directly related. It is viable to demolish buildings. It is viable to orchestrate a false flag attack in which airplanes are allowed to fly into buildings. It is absurd to crash airplanes into buildings and then covertly demolish them on the same day. Crashing airplanes into those buildings was sufficient to initiate a military response in itself.

Oh please go and read up on Rebuilding America’s Defenses, booNy – it was about more than “a military response” and it doesn’t matter what you think was sufficient – it is all set out in that document. That you cannot even get the on record objectives and pre-stated requirement correct, and then think you are disputing anything, now that really is absurd.

If you want to tout some conspiracy theory that Neocons and Zionists intentionally allowed or even facilitated the airplanes, feel free. That idea is nutty enough in itself, but when you add in this demolition BS it becomes beyond absurd. It becomes downright ludicrous. By the way, I'm not validating the viability of this ludicrous notion by pointing this out. I don't find it viable that WTC 1 and 2 had been covertly packed with demolition charges prior to the event and then miraculously initiated collapse within the impact zones. And even though it may be considered viable for WTC 7 to have been covertly packed beforehand, it would have been completely unnecessary to accomplish the ends of the conspiracy theory you hold onto.

It is absurd that you think adding words like “ludicrous” and “miraculously”, without explanation of what exactly warrants those definitions, is anything but empty rhetoric. What is ludicrous or miraculous? You are doing a great job of stating your feelings but nothing in the way of justifying them… but that’s what faith is all about.

If you want to talk about viability, it is completely viable that WTC 1 and 2 came down as a direct result of the plane impacts and ensuing fires, and that WTC 7 came down as a direct result of impact damage from debris and ensuing fires. It is, in fact, more than just viable. Given that the fires went completely uncontested it was inevitable. This is not absurd. This is not ludicrous. This is simply reality as dictated by the laws of physics and how they apply to the construction of these buildings.

It is absurd that you talk of physics and think unchecked fire leads to inevitable complete collapse… when NIST’s own physics models show the exact opposite. It’s all very well making things up because it sounds good booNy, but of little value in opposition to the facts. Anyone with a basic understanding of material properties, indeterminate structures and office fires knows it is impossible that the aircraft impacts or fires present on 9/11 brought down any of those buildings.

[skyeagle409]

It is absurd that you talk of physics and think unchecked fire leads to inevitable complete collapse… when NIST's own physics models show the exact opposite.

Let's take another look.

Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition"

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

My link

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

My link

[booNyzarC]

Oh please go and read up on Rebuilding America’s Defenses, booNy – it was about more than “a military response” and it doesn’t matter what you think was sufficient – it is all set out in that document. That you cannot even get the on record objectives and pre-stated requirement correct, and then think you are disputing anything, now that really is absurd.

I've read it. It is just an assessment, nothing more.

It is absurd that you think adding words like “ludicrous” and “miraculously”, without explanation of what exactly warrants those definitions, is anything but empty rhetoric. What is ludicrous or miraculous? You are doing a great job of stating your feelings but nothing in the way of justifying them… but that’s what faith is all about.

We obviously aren't going to agree on this. In my opinion what you suggest is completely ludicrous because I find it virtually impossible for the scenario you lay out to be even remotely plausible. In your opinion what you claim makes perfect sense and is the only possible conclusion to reach. You are welcome to your opinion, however incorrect it may be.

It is absurd that you talk of physics and think unchecked fire leads to inevitable complete collapse… when NIST’s own physics models show the exact opposite. It’s all very well making things up because it sounds good booNy, but of little value in opposition to the facts. Anyone with a basic understanding of material properties, indeterminate structures and office fires knows it is impossible that the aircraft impacts or fires present on 9/11 brought down any of those buildings.

It is absurd to think that every building will completely collapse due to unchecked fires. It was inevitable that those buildings collapsed due to the construction of the buildings, the damage, and the fires. NIST's models do not show the exact opposite. NIST's models confirm the collapse initiation scenarios and Bazant's limiting case accurately predicts the totality of collapse once initiated. You've twisted what they have presented in an effort to substantiate this claim of yours, but you have ignored every counter point for years, and you have failed to show how the buildings should have survived.

Here's what you need to do if you want to gain any traction at all in this demolition stance:

Publish a peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal which proves that NIST and Bazant were wrong and that unconventional controlled demolition is the only possible answer. If you can't do it, enlist someone who is actually qualified to do it for you.

Until you or someone else involved with the truth movement does something like that, nothing you say will have any real impact on anything at all. It has been over a decade now, and still there is nothing which proves any part of this conspiracy theory. Claims have been brought up and refuted, time and time again. New areas of ambiguity are then seized upon for the next set of claims. And if you want to bring Harrit's paper to bear as some kind of 'legitimate scientific paper', read this first.

All you have is a bunch of suspicious ideas about what might have happened if there was actually a conspiracy. You have absolutely nothing of substance to prove any single piece of it. Nothing. But you've held onto the belief for so long now that you cannot escape from it, and you've convinced yourself that you actually have something of substance when in reality you do not.

[Q24]

I've read it. It is just an assessment, nothing more.

Then why say the aim was “a military response” and crashing planes was “sufficient”? You might have read Rebuilding America’s Defenses, which was indeed a Neocon assessment of the challenges faced, but you can’t have been paying much attention.

We obviously aren't going to agree on this. In my opinion what you suggest is completely ludicrous because I find it virtually impossible for the scenario you lay out to be even remotely plausible. In your opinion what you claim makes perfect sense and is the only possible conclusion to reach. You are welcome to your opinion, however incorrect it may be.

What is ludicrous and miraculous and impossible?

It is absurd to think that every building will completely collapse due to unchecked fires. It was inevitable that those buildings collapsed due to the construction of the buildings, the damage, and the fires. NIST's models do not show the exact opposite.

NIST produced two models (including a best match to the impact and fire situation on 9/11) which did not cause collapse – therefore the collapses were not “inevitable”; the collapses were not even “likely”.

NIST's models confirm the collapse initiation scenarios and Bazant's limiting case accurately predicts the totality of collapse once initiated. You've twisted what they have presented in an effort to substantiate this claim of yours, but you have ignored every counter point for years, and you have failed to show how the buildings should have survived.

You have shown every step of the way that you don’t understand NIST’s models or Bazant’s theory. NIST showed the collapses could not initiate without manipulating their models and Bazant’s theory is a non-starter due to the fantasy assumptions throughout. You don’t even realise that you crapped all over Bazant’s theory in our previous discussion

Here's what you need to do if you want to gain any traction at all in this demolition stance:

Publish a peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal which proves that NIST and Bazant were wrong and that unconventional controlled demolition is the only possible answer. If you can't do it, enlist someone who is actually qualified to do it for you.

We have been over it before in this thread… but you completely ignored it. The mainstream journals are no different to the mainstream media and a U.S. attorney has shown how the likes of Bazant receive favortism in the peer review process. As I said before, you are being deceived by your misplaced trust in the system.

And I can’t believe you dropped “NIST” in the same sentence as “peer reviewed”. Now that is funny. James Quintiere is NIST’s own former Chief of the Fire Science Division: -

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

So you just referenced one theory that has never been peer-reviewed and another that received demonstrable favortism in the process. And then have the double-standard to claim we need a “peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal”. I know you didn’t mean to have that double-standard, it’s just that you are trying to argue a point when you don’t understand the situation.

I won’t respond to the rest of your post – you talk a lot without actually saying much. The evidence for demolition and the false flag nature of 9/11 is plain as day and can only be denied through your own fear and faith, not refuted. I accept that not everyone can handle the truth.

[booNyzarC]

Then why say the aim was “a military response” and crashing planes was “sufficient”? You might have read Rebuilding America’s Defenses, which was indeed a Neocon assessment of the challenges faced, but you can’t have been paying much attention.

I read it and paid plenty of attention. It was written very well actually. You interpret it as a blueprint for future nefarious action, but it wasn't. It was an assessment.

What is ludicrous and miraculous and impossible?

The version of 911 that you have convinced yourself of.

NIST produced two models (including a best match to the impact and fire situation on 9/11) which did not cause collapse – therefore the collapses were not “inevitable”; the collapses were not even “likely”.

NIST produced a range of models per industry standards and none of them were a perfect match with the exact details of the day. They were tasked not only with producing a probable collapse sequence for the buildings, but also to provide recommendations for improving general building codes and standards.

Reproducing every single detail of the event is virtually impossible and getting close would require an unreasonable amount of resources. It is obvious that this was a terrorist attack. NIST wasn't tasked with refuting conspiracy theorists and they weren't given an unlimited budget for that accomplishment. If they had been, they could have.

Your criticisms of NIST are misplaced and uninformed. If you want to create an exact physics model, feel free to spend your time and money on such a project. This wasn't the job of NIST. You need to get that through your skull before you can move forward.

You have shown every step of the way that you don’t understand NIST’s models or Bazant’s theory. NIST showed the collapses could not initiate without manipulating their models and Bazant’s theory is a non-starter due to the fantasy assumptions throughout. You don’t even realise that you crapped all over Bazant’s theory in our previous discussion

I didn't crap all over Bazant's theory. You twisted my responses into the mistaken interpretation that I had. When are you going to realize that Bazant wasn't trying to model the actual scenario of that day? When are you going to realize that Bazant produced a limiting case? Do you know what that means? A limiting case is a best case scenario which would be the most resistant to global collapse. Even in this limiting case global collapse was a foregone conclusion. There was no stopping it once it started.

That is the point of Bazant's papers. He wasn't trying to calculate the actual conditions. The actual conditions were far worse than those presented by Bazant. And you can't even acknowledge this very simple and obvious fact.

We have been over it before in this thread… but you completely ignored it. The mainstream journals are no different to the mainstream media and a U.S. attorney has shown how the likes of Bazant receive favortism in the peer review process. As I said before, you are being deceived by your misplaced trust in the system.

We have been over it. Many times. And you've been over it with Swanny many times before I even entered the discussion.

You can label it favoritism all you want, but until you or someone else can produce something that actually refutes it, Bazant's papers stand uncontested.

And I can’t believe you dropped “NIST” in the same sentence as “peer reviewed”. Now that is funny. James Quintiere is NIST’s own former Chief of the Fire Science Division: -

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

So you just referenced one theory that has never been peer-reviewed and another that received demonstrable favortism in the process. And then have the double-standard to claim we need a “peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal”. I know you didn’t mean to have that double-standard, it’s just that you are trying to argue a point when you don’t understand the situation.

So what is stopping him from publishing a peer reviewed paper of his own? If he really thinks that there is a severe problem, he should get off his ass and lay it all out on paper for peer review; just like you and anyone else who is so convinced that the damage and fires couldn't have done this.

I understand the situation just fine. You're convinced that this musta' been an inside job and you're willing to cling to anything at all in an effort to support that.

I won’t respond to the rest of your post – you talk a lot without actually saying much. The evidence for demolition and the false flag nature of 9/11 is plain as day and can only be denied through your own fear and faith, not refuted. I accept that not everyone can handle the truth.

Of course you won't. Just like you avoid other points that have been made over and over again. Just like you avoid describing exactly how Bazant doesn't account for Newton's third law according to your claims. Just like you avoid acknowledging that Bazant was presenting a best case scenario and not attempting a re-created model of the actual collapses. Just like you avoid realizing that the actual situation on that day was more prone to global collapse than Bazant's model. Just like you assume that loud bangs musta' been demolition charges when you know full well that there are tens if not hundreds of other completely plausible and fully expected explanations. Just like you ignore that the range of NIST's models included a collapse scenario. Just like you ignore that NIST was focused solely on collapse initiation and not on the inevitable global collapse which would ensue. Just like you deny that bin Laden had made statements which directly implicate him in the planning of the attacks. Just like you claim that the debris fields from Flight 93 could only have happened if it had been shot down, when in reality the fields are in full alignment with the crash scenario, the winds, and the geography of the area.

Seriously Q24. Get something substantial put together or just admit that you can't. How much of your life are you intending to waste in pursuit of this nonsensical conspiracy anyway?

[Wandering]

That is moot by they fact that thousands of people were killed.

The fact that entire floors were empty, giving a more than accessible option in which to get inside the building and plant explosives where required.

It's moot because thousands of people were killed.