WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?

[merril]

NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli tries to set the record straight that he was misquoted-

On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.

In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate civilians. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.

Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).

http://louiecacchioli.com/personalhistory.html

[merril]

And, some exact schematics that accurately depict the WTC elevator system, to reference and correct for interviews given by firemen, etc, would help clear up these arguments about where the blast traveled down the shafts, and how many shafts were actually involved in the original wave.

[Stundie]

What segments or articles of wall or floor construction were people referring to, exactly, as being affected by the fireball blast in the basement, when they are quoted as saying they witnessed blast effects?

Please read the statements I posted.

If you want to know the specifics, then asking me who wasn't actually there is not going to get you the answers.

I read that some veneer of marble fell from the walls in the lobby, and a door was knocked down. Although, there was probably a decent amount of results from the blast.

Maybe you should have read the statement I posted.

"The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It's about two or three inches thick. They're about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall....."

And, when someone says something like a metal press was "gone", what does that mean?

Not there.

Blown into a wall cavity, out of sight? Smashed to pieces?

Why does it matter? Jet fuel travelling down a elevator shaft is not going to cause this.

I wish these people would form a group and settle these internet rumors once and for all. Did they, or did they not see bombs go off?

There is no need for a group, some people heard explosions, some people felt explosions, some saw explosions.

And, why are they still alive?

Because they were extremely lucky and fortunate.

Now, if this energy went down the little elevator shafts, in which the even smaller elevators travel, what would that do on the ground floors?

I imagine that Arturo who is in car 50 can explain what happened.

"And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my head and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening."

[Stundie]

NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli tries to set the record straight that he was misquoted-

On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.

In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate civilians. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.

Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).

http://louiecacchioli.com/personalhistory.html

Well it's a good job I did not use that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm not sure why you brought it up, his opinions doesn't prove either case, either way.

And I do not have much time for Popular Mechanics seeing as the owners (Hearst Corporation) are famous for Yellow Journalism.

I think this video highlights some of the problems of Popular Mechanics debunking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnEpia9JpYE

[Stundie]

And, some exact schematics that accurately depict the WTC elevator system, to reference and correct for interviews given by firemen, etc, would help clear up these arguments about where the blast traveled down the shafts, and how many shafts were actually involved in the original wave.

I have already posted an exact blueprint for the lift shafts, the only one which travels the entire length of the building is car 50.

[flyingswan]

Also if a blast wave is confined to the shaft, then it will still reduce with distance.

It may well reflect back up, but I doubt it will increase in strength or energy.

I suggest you research the behaviour of shock waves in shafts before you make any more such statements. I never said it increased in energy - it increases in strength at the instant that it reflects, as a result of a brief exchange of kinetic and internal (pressure) energy.

If you don't believe me, ask the aerodynamics staff at your nearest college.

I haven't got a clue how much one weighs, that would be like asking someone how long is a piece of string as I'm sure that not all 50 tons presses weigh 800lbs.

I just made that comment because you bolded a quote which left the impression that it weighed 50 tons.

[Stundie]

I suggest you research the behaviour of shock waves in shafts before you make any more such statements.

Why?

What if I do some research in to the behaviour of shockwaves in a shaft and find nothing that will explain it? Then what?

I never said it increased in energy - it increases in strength at the instant that it reflects, as a result of a brief exchange of kinetic and internal (pressure) energy.

I know you never said there was an increase in energy, I said that because I can't see how something increases in strength without an increase in energy?

Maybe you would care to explain or expand on this point?

If you don't believe me, ask the aerodynamics staff at your nearest college.

I would ask, but I do not know what phenomenon I am suppose to be asking them about? lol

I just made that comment because you bolded a quote which left the impression that it weighed 50 tons.

No, I just highlighted people describing damage, or in this case, to show that a "50 ton press machine" in other words "a machine which can press 50 tons" had vanished.

[flyingswan]

I would ask, but I do not know what phenomenon I am suppose to be asking them about? lol

Ask them whether I am correct in saying that a shockwave can travel a long way down a shaft without losing strength, ask them about the increase in strength at the instant of reflection. You have questioned these claims of mine, but show no sign of having any expertise on the subject. That is why you need to research the subject or ask the experts.

To spell out the reflection effect in more detail: picture a shock travelling down a shaft. The air below the shock is at rest, the air above it is moving downwards. When the shock reaches the bottom of the shaft, the moving air is brought to rest, trading kinetic energy for internal energy, which manifests as an increase in pressure and temperature. Driven by the high pressure, the shock reflects back up the shaft, becoming a moving boundary between static and downflowing air.

[Stundie]

Ask them whether I am correct in saying that a shockwave can travel a long way down a shaft without losing strength, ask them about the increase in strength at the instant of reflection.

I do not doubt that a shockwave can travel down or along a shaft. I'm not sure why I should ask them about the strength at the instant of reflection. Considering that this shockwave only travelled down one shaft (even though there were many others shafts!) and caused damage on floors 22, the lobby and basement floor.

You have questioned these claims of mine, but show no sign of having any expertise on the subject.

And it would seem that you have no signs of any expertise about this subject, seeing as you can't point to what this phenomenon is.

That is why you need to research the subject or ask the experts.

What am I suppose to ask them? lol

To spell out the reflection effect in more detail: picture a shock travelling down a shaft. The air below the shock is at rest, the air above it is moving downwards. When the shock reaches the bottom of the shaft, the moving air is brought to rest, trading kinetic energy for internal energy, which manifests as an increase in pressure and temperature. Driven by the high pressure, the shock reflects back up the shaft, becoming a moving boundary between static and downflowing air.

Thanks for spelling it out, although this is not a spelling bee.

So what you are saying is that the jet fuel, most of which was burned away with the initial impact travelled down one of the elevator shafts out of the many, by passing Arturo in Car 50 leaving him relatively unharmed, then causing damage on floors 22, then continued down to the lobby blowing out all the windows and leaving marble tiles hanging off the walls, then continued travelling down to the basement, caving in the walls and floors in multiple basement floors, mangling a press machine and a 300lb door.

And while doing this, the shockwave manage to by pass over 60 floors between the impact zone and floor 22 causing no damage to those other floors, even though there was an escape route from the doors within the lift shaft between those floors?

Should I ask these experts about magic shockwaves?

[flyingswan]

So what you are saying is that the jet fuel, most of which was burned away with the initial impact travelled down one of the elevator shafts out of the many, by passing Arturo in Car 50 leaving him relatively unharmed, then causing damage on floors 22, then continued down to the lobby blowing out all the windows and leaving marble tiles hanging off the walls, then continued travelling down to the basement, caving in the walls and floors in multiple basement floors, mangling a press machine and a 300lb door.

And while doing this, the shockwave manage to by pass over 60 floors between the impact zone and floor 22 causing no damage to those other floors, even though there was an escape route from the doors within the lift shaft between those floors?

That is not what I said, you are creating a strawman argument here. I did not say that jet fuel behaved in that way, I said that shockwaves from fuel explosions could do those things, and I explained why in my post #223.

Incidentally, do you have a source for "most of the jet fuel burned away with the initial impact", or is that more of your personal opinion?

Should I ask these experts about magic shockwaves?

I have given you an explanation of these phenomena based on my engineering knowledge. Your response has been to deny my explanation outright, including denials of my description of shockwave behaviour. May I remind you that you claimed "if a blast wave is confined to the shaft, then it will still reduce with distance" and "it may well reflect back up, but I doubt it will increase in strength" and "if the blast happened higher up, then he would feel the effect more than someone in the basement". These claims are all incorrect at the level of basic aerodynamics.

I don't expect you to take my word for this, but since your case depends on these factors, it is your responsibility to show that you have some technical knowledge to back up your claims, rather than merely the argument from personal incredulity - "I don't understand it so it can't be right". This is why I suggested you research shockwave behaviour or ask your nearest aerodynamicist - simply show this thread and ask who is correct.

Edited October 16, 2009 by flyingswan

[Q24]

Incidentally, do you have a source for "most of the jet fuel burned away with the initial impact", or is that more of your personal opinion?

NIST’s own estimation is that a third to a half of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireballs at impact. NCSTAR1-5 goes on to state, “While much of the public attention has been focussed on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.”

Even Popular Mechanics’ infamous hit-piece quotes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego as confirming, “It [the jet fuel] burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes.”

Therefore trying to credit jet fuel with explosions that occurred in the WTC buildings long after the impacts (up to an hour in some cases) would be disingenuous. There were also documented explosions from WTC7 which were obviously not caused by jet fuel. The best attempt at an explanation would be pressurised containers (such as gas canisters, boilers, fire extinguishers) or electrical transformers, etc, exploding due to the fires. This does not account for the explosions far below the fire zones or the reason that the FDNY would believe there were “seconday devices” planted in the buildings… problem, official story.

[flyingswan]

NISTs own estimation is that a third to a half of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireballs at impact.

Thanks, that's hardly "most".

Do we have a timeline for the lift car and basement damage that Stundie is interested in? My impression was that we were discussing things that happened shortly after the impact.

Edited October 17, 2009 by flyingswan

[Stundie]

That is not what I said, you are creating a strawman argument here.

Sorry but I'm not creating any strawmen, seeing as you believe the jet fuel explosion caused a shockwave which then caused this damage.

I did not say that jet fuel behaved in that way, I said that shockwaves from fuel explosions could do those things, and I explained why in my post#223.

But shockwaves do not explain how it left the doors of the lift shaft undamaged between floor 90-22 but then travelled down to the basement causing floors and walls to cave in.

If it was a shockwave, then the doors and the surrounding areas of each of the floors would also be damaged. A shockwave starting at the initial impact would cause more damage on the higher floors. Yet the most damage seems to have been caused at the furthest point of the impact.

The shockwave theory is also flawed because it only seems to have travelled down one lift shaft when there were mulitple lift shafts which it never travelled down.

Incidentally, do you have a source for "most of the jet fuel burned away with the initial impact", or is that more of your personal opinion?

Please read the official report which you appear to defend, almost blindly.

I have given you an explanation of these phenomena based on my engineering knowledge.

You have given me a vague description of a shockwave theory which opens up more questions than it answers.

Your response has been to deny my explanation outright, including denials of my description of shockwave behaviour.

I took it on board, but seeing how vague and how there is no supporting evidence for your theory, then I have to take it with a pinch of salt.

May I remind you that you claimed "if a blast wave is confined to the shaft, then it will still reduce with distance" and "it may well reflect back up, but I doubt it will increase in strength" and "if the blast happened higher up, then he would feel the effect more than someone in the basement". These claims are all incorrect at the level of basic aerodynamics.

You still have not explained how something increases in strength without increasing in energy? Seeing as you said I was wrong, would you care to explain yourself.

Also I stand by statement that you will feel more of the shockwave or blast higher up than someone at the basement for the simple reason that the energy dissipates.

And I'll happily admit I'm not an expert in any relevant science, but I'm hoping you are not trying to appeal to your authority as an engineer.

I don't expect you to take my word for this, but since your case depends on these factors, it is your responsibility to show that you have some technical knowledge to back up your claims, rather than merely the argument from personal incredulity - "I don't understand it so it can't be right". This is why I suggested you research shockwave behaviour or ask your nearest aerodynamicist - simply show this thread and ask who is correct.

Sorry, but I never claimed that jet fuel or a shockwave caused this, I shouldn't have to prove a negative, in otherwords disprove a theory which you have provided without evidence or any kind of critical thinking.

And until you can address the questions of why this shockwave only travelled down this one lift shaft without causing damage on any of the floors other than 22, the lobby and basements, then I will have to put this down as an excuse born from cognitive dissonance.

[Stundie]

Thanks, that's hardly "most".

What I meant to say was that most of it burned off in the initial impact and within a few minutes afterwards.

It seems like a game of semantics is the order of the day.

Do we have a timeline for the lift car and basement damage that Stundie is interested in?

Arturo's account is when the planes impacted.

Some of the others accounts of explosions were before and much after the impact. Go back to my 1t post in the thread if you are trying to establish a timeline.

My impression was that we were discussing things that happened shortly after the impact.

Some of the explosions happened after the impact, some were much later on.

[Coffey]

NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli tries to set the record straight that he was misquoted-

On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.

In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate civilians. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.

Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).

http://louiecacchioli.com/personalhistory.html

Yes, but where is the proof he hasn't been payed/made to say that after he said it?

One thing I have noticed is the video's showing those drone like spheres around the 9/11 scene which i find very strange, this suggests if they belong to the government that it was a controlled inside job.

[aquatus1]

Yes, but where is the proof he hasn't been payed/made to say that after he said it?

What would such proof consist of?

One thing I have noticed is the video's showing those drone like spheres around the 9/11 scene which i find very strange, this suggests if they belong to the government that it was a controlled inside job.

This is the first I've heard of these spheres. Do you have a link where I could learn more about them?

[Guest]

If killing people was the main motive (creating more terror) then delaying the attack by just an hour or so would have killed many more thousands than it did. It almost seems that the time was chosen to minimise casualties.

Br Cornelius

[flyingswan]

Sorry but I'm not creating any strawmen, seeing as you believe the jet fuel explosion caused a shockwave which then caused this damage.

You set up a strawman of fuel travelling in unrealistic ways, whereas I am claiming that it was the shockwaves that did the travelling, and these do not behave in the same way as fuel. All I need to initiate a shockwave is a fuel vapour/air mixture at the point where the impact damages the shaft and an ignition source.

But shockwaves do not explain how it left the doors of the lift shaft undamaged between floor 90-22 but then travelled down to the basement causing floors and walls to cave in.

If it was a shockwave, then the doors and the surrounding areas of each of the floors would also be damaged. A shockwave starting at the initial impact would cause more damage on the higher floors. Yet the most damage seems to have been caused at the furthest point of the impact.

I've explained several times how a shock travels down the shaft at constant pressure, then generates much higher pressure at the basement. As to the damage at level 22, there are possible explanations, but insufficient evidence to choose between them. For example, the damage could have been caused by the reflected shock meeting a second descending shock at that level, or the reflected shock meeting debris coming down the shaft.

The shockwave theory is also flawed because it only seems to have travelled down one lift shaft when there were mulitple lift shafts which it never travelled down.

Was every lift shaft damaged in the impact? Did every lift shaft get the same fuel/air mixture? Did every lift shaft have an ignition source?

Please read the official report which you appear to defend, almost blindly.

...and in your very next post you concede the point. Brilliant.

You still have not explained how something increases in strength without increasing in energy? Seeing as you said I was wrong, would you care to explain yourself.

In very much the same way as a tsunami, or indeed a normal sea wave, increases in height when it reaches a shoreline. It converts kinetic energy into the potential energy associated with increased height. The strength/pressure jump of a shockwave is equivalent to the strength/height of a water wave.

Also I stand by statement that you will feel more of the shockwave or blast higher up than someone at the basement for the simple reason that the energy dissipates.

The loss of strength with distance for a shockwave in free air is a geometric effect - as it gets farther from the source the energy is spread over a greater area. This does not happen in a shaft, where the energy has nowhere to go but down the shaft. Remember that while it may lose a little energy in dissipative ways - conducting heat to the shaft, for example - this will be neglible compared with the energy released by the fuel/air explosion which drives the shock.

And I'll happily admit I'm not an expert in any relevant science, but I'm hoping you are not trying to appeal to your authority as an engineer.

Which is exactly why I'm suggesting you ask an independent expert.

Sorry, but I never claimed that jet fuel or a shockwave caused this, I shouldn't have to prove a negative, in otherwords disprove a theory which you have provided without evidence or any kind of critical thinking.

You claim that the jet fuel argument doesn't work, I give reasons for rejecting your argument based on my knowledge of how shockwaves behave. You need to do more to sustain your position than merely claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in an area where you admit that you have no expertise. You don't have to prove a negative, but you have to show that shockwaves behave as you would like them to, rather than as they actually do.

And until you can address the questions of why this shockwave only travelled down this one lift shaft without causing damage on any of the floors other than 22, the lobby and basements, then I will have to put this down as an excuse born from cognitive dissonance.

I have addressed these questions, but you will just say that you don't believe me. I'm sorry, but that does not cut it as an argument.

Edited October 18, 2009 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

What I meant to say was that most of it burned off in the initial impact and within a few minutes afterwards.

It seems like a game of semantics is the order of the day.

You were the one who said "initial impact", I query it, you say "few minutes". That's clarification, not semantics.

Arturo's account is when the planes impacted.

Some of the others accounts of explosions were before and much after the impact. Go back to my 1t post in the thread if you are trying to establish a timeline.

Some of the explosions happened after the impact, some were much later on.

Were any of the events associated with the lift shafts long after the impact? Other explosions in a burning building are not unexpected, but the ones early in the fire and identified as happening a long way from the impact site are what we were discussing.

Edited October 18, 2009 by flyingswan

[Q24]

DELETED

Edited August 13, 2011 by Q24

[Mike 215]

If you read the 500 pages of the 911 Commission Report (see google) you can see that it resembles the famous Warren Commission report on the Kennedy Assassination. In other words, they are a work of fiction. In both cases the commissions were not allowed to do their jobs because certain government agenices refused to cooperate and furnish documents such as the CIA. So the commissions had to make up stories to fit the facts as they knew them

What I found interestng in reading these reports is that they admit to facts that contradict their conclusions. So in the case of Oswald, they admit he had contact with the FBI days before the assassination and that he was working for the CIA when he was in the army when he had a job as an air traffic controller for the U-2 spy planes. But we were told he was just a lone nut.

In the case of 911 we were told that the hijackers were responsible for crashing the planes into the building after they took control of the aircraft. Yet they admit that most of them were incapable of flying any aircraft because they did not know English or they were nearly illeriate. They came from rural areas in Saudi Arabia where they barely went to school and they kept failing flight schools here in the US. None of them had any expience in flying jet airliners, but the commission concludes they were able to take control of these aircraft, reprogram the navigatiion computers and fly the planes like expert pilots when they hit the WTC and Pentagon after diverting the planes hundreds of miles off course.

Another fact they left out of the report was the collapse of Building 7. How did it collapse if it was not hit by an aircraft? They could not explain it so it was ignored in the report.

[aquatus1]

**For reasons unknown, this thread has been dragged up from many, many years ago, when we have current and active threads on the very same subject (with very little in actual new material, even). I will go ahead and shut down this thread, but please feel free to post in the current active threads regarding this subject.**