Um... (Spock voice) I believe I said that, Doctor.

I see no evidence either. What I see is the effort by conspirologists to make specific "litmus tests" to both falsify the explosives theory or prove the official theory.

For the former, the argument is "You can't prove they couldn't have snuck in with explosives." They ignore the easier test; "Did anyone smell or otherwise detect explosives residue?"

For the latter, they ignore the FEA and other models, and the tests that support the analysis, and instead characterize the official theory as needing a smoking gun; as being dependent on being able to hold up a specific steel member that has given way under stress and temperature, for instance.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(McCoy voice): Damnit Spock, why you do not say so!!

(not able to google phrase I look for on web
is phrase losing some in translation
ask for partial credit for I am cute )

I apologize. I am thinking you support point of view you present.

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

I said: Turbonium said: On the Apollohoax board, *you* provided a link to the FEMA report on the collapse of WTC7. In that document is the following:

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC7, the building collapsed. The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 17.20.33, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1…

~5.20.33pm: WTC7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~5.21.03pm: Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely.

~5.21.08pm: Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC7.

~5.21.09pm: Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~5.21.10pm: WTC7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall.

From http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Why do you argue against the evidence you provide?

I and even many who are opposing the controlled demolition have been calling them "squibs". I also began by describing them as "puffs of smoke" or "squibs". If it's really that much of an issue, we can all decide to call them "smoke puffs" of "dust poofs" for all I care.

On the Apollohoax board, *you* provided a link to the FEMA report on the collapse of WTC7......

Why do you argue against the evidence you provide?

And in what regard was the reference provided? It wasn't about the timing of the WTC 7 collapse, from penthouse to total building, on the AH board. I have disputed the FEMA and NIST reports on several points, and have provided the links as a reference. Again, watch the full video link I posted - the west penthouse collapses 5 seconds after the east penthouse, but I see no delay of 1 to 2 seconds before the entire collapse begins.

Watch the Naudet video clip I linked - there are "squibs" which fire out in two areas - not only along the southwest corner, as we've discussed, but also on the north face of the building. Below are stills with lines indicating where they come out....



As you said, "the north side hadn't collapsed yet". But "squibs" have fired out from the north face at this time. So with no collapse, no compression can account for this effect.

Why wouldn't there be significant structural stress and significant air compression before obvious collapse of that section? Why wouldn't this account for a blowout? It isn't as if this section of the building was independent and hermetically sealed from the rest.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Turbonium said: What do you mean, no collapse? The penthouses have already collapsed.

My big problem with these "squibs" is, well, that they aren't big enough. I've watched video of buildings being demolished. I've set a few charges myself. These just to my eye are far too puny to be a charge supposed to cut a major structural member. Well, okay...maybe if they were really, really well tamped...

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Go get a piece of steel and put it out in the field for several years. Cover it with fireproofing. Now snap it. Anyone ever done that? I have. Or rather, I've been there when it was done in the test rig. Know what happens to all the gunk that accumulates on, or is applied to, that steel when it snaps?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Note the kink in the roofline indicated by the blue arrow (coincidentally, right where the east penthouse used to be). Notice the damage on the front of the building, along a line down from where that penthouse used to be. Notice how much farther the roofline is sagging by the time of that second frame. And what a coincidence, those "squibs" on the front side of the building appear right after the west penthouse disapears. Are you going to claim there wasn't massive internal collapse going on already at that point?

There are some bad cause-effect assumptions going on here. The "squibs" (i.e., puffs of solid aerosol) occur where the structural elements would need to fail in order to produce the visible damage to the curtain walls. However, instead of assuming that the "squibs" are causing the failure, why not consider that the puffs of aerosol are the result of the failure?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

If you begin to use logic, you break whole conspiracy theory!!! Behave Jay!!

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

That's okay Monique. Most CT's would recognise logic if they fell over it.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The fact that these three steel framed skyscrapers fell straight down in a controlled demolition fashion should have raised far more eyebrows than it did. The problem seems to be that people can't fathom the idea that their government would commit such a heinous crime on their own citizens and therefore they seek other rationals for what took place.

Look at it this way, if it was that easy to fell skyscrapers into their own footprint, don't you think that building demolition experts would be doing it that way too? Just blow a hole in the side of it, set it on fire, the whole structure falls straight to the ground. Or in the case of WTC 7, just set it on fire.

It's not gonna' happen.

Below are two pics of steel framed structures on fire...





Guess which one collapsed...

Shhh. You have just unveiled the real conspiracy here. The building demolition industry is desperate to hold onto their monopoly on this line of work. If this secret gets, then everyone will be able to get in on the act and the price to tear down a building will plummet and their profits destroyed.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Two simple points (as this is really starting to bore me...)

You can't tell the size of a fire by looking at the outside of a building. You can't tell the time a fire has been burning by looking at a picture. You can't tell anything about the internal structure and the state of the fire resistant measures, either. Comparing photographs is an exercise in futility.

The other point is that any company that felled a tower like the WTC's building fell would be getting half pay. They may have fallen into their footprints (not that surprising, considering their size), but they fell messy, scattering debris all around.

Oh, yeah. And the same strange double-standard of the conspiracy theorists. Why on earth would a smart conspiracy choose to destroy a building in the way that was most difficult to pull off and looked most suspicious to observers? Bomb the dratted thing and let it fall any which way.

I mean, did Bush stand up and say that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, to wit, he found some aliens who leant him a Death Star? No. That would be silly. He stood up and said he suspected Saddam might be able to make a nuke some day if not stopped.

So why would Bush (hypothetically) destroy a building in way specifically designed to look artificial? Just to show off? Because he secretly wants to get caught? Because the ego-destroying drugs the chemtrails aircraft are spraying across the heartland have made Americans incapable of questioning him? (And if so...why bother hiding at all? Why even bother bringing down the buildings?)

The only thing that makes sense is that this is, generally, how large buildings fall, and any educated person who takes the time to compare images can verify it.

I agree that saying this does NOT, explicitly NOT, say anything about WHY the buildings fell. It simply states that HOW the buildings fell was convincing to most people -- including those with the background and education to understand the detailed physics and engineering behind those collapses.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Below are two pics of steel framed structures on fire...

Why do you assume that structures should behave identically just because they're made generally from the same material?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

About conspiracies, there was a mainstream newitem in the Netherlands about 9/11 (viewable at http://www.2vandaag.nl/index.php?mod...=210&sid=29882 ) It has English subtitles where needed.

"Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story."

Although it doesn't actually mention the demolition issues here, it is interesting to know that prominent people question the official facts about 9/11.
I found that interesting, since these people can't be written of as conspiracy lunatics, like most here would like to do.

Some quotes from the programme by Michael Meacher:
"conspiracies DO exist"
"The 9/11-report is one big avoidance"
"only 1 chapter of the report looks at the day itself, the vast majority is about what precautions to be taken in future events"

The programme is about 20 minutes

Um....there is a vast difference between "expresses doubt at the official story" and supporting the extreme conspirologist story of murder, betrayal, and cover-up.

How about they expressed doubts that the US was completely unaware of the terrorist plan? Or that the Air Force was as confused and helpless as it appears on that day? Or that the trail from the hijackers lead straight to Iraq? Oh, wait a minute. Nobody believes THAT one any more!

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I assure you, 2 planes crashed into the towers, no explosives were placed, no thermite was places, no black-ops agency did it, the russians didn't do it, the yakuza didn't do it, a handful of terrorists did it, period.

__________________
-The Wolf
http://www.ryanmercer.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/ryanmercer317
http://www.pleasegodhelpme.org

Turbonium...What Jay has said is exactly the reason I'm having trouble with your use of the word "squibs". It's usage implies that there were explosives used...you have not demonstrated that to be a fact...you simply keep saying it over and over...

Well, I for one am now convinced! I mean, who wouldn't take the word of two European politicians over that of a couple thousand 'Merican engineers?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Quite.
I don't know who von Bulow is, but Meacher is an idiot, how he gets elected everytime I don't know.

I think Andreas von Bülow previously was from the Office of Defence in Germany.

Very pretty pictures. They do not prove your point.
Show where failure analysis do not account for behavior shown in pretty pictures.

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

Well, I've been dangling the worm but no one is biting. So I'll just blurt it out.

When steel fails under heavy strain -- especially tensile failure -- it's practically explosive in and of itself. Take a bolt of, say, an inch in diameter and put it in the hydraulic strain rig and yank it to failure. When it finally goes, it's like a gunshot. The release of strain energy in something that can take a lot of strain is surprising to people who aren't familiar with it (and that includes various professors and self-professors of physics).

The other effect is the cloud of crap from whatever has coated the object. Lab specimens are usually fairly pure. But go get a mild steel bolt and let it get a patina of oxides over several years. Or let it rust a bit. Or, if it's galvanized, let a bit of zinc oxide form (the formation of the zinc oxide barrier is why we galvanize). Now subject it to tensile failure. You get a "puff" of mechanically rejected coatings. We see this all the time in fastener failures in the field.

Or, alternatively, consider the failures of welded beam seats or other connective features on structural steel, or even the steel itself, that will have been coated with fireproofing material. That stuff dries brittle. You can chip it away with your fingernail if you're a bit persistent. If anything coated with that material snaps, the material is effectively aerosolized.

The release of strain energy can be experienced by breaking a wooden stick with both hands. If the stick breaks cleanly, you will feel some pain in your hands. This is the strain energy released in the fracture being applied mechanically to your hands as a shock -- a rapid application of force.

Because these aerosol clouds are seen in normal failure modes, there is simply no reason to consider them anomalous and no reason to postulate additional explanations for why we see them in WTC 7. The locations of these observed aerosols correspond to joints in the underlying structure, which is where the framework would be expected to fail under critical load.

As I mentioned earlier, the squibs seen in intentional implosive demolitions are intended to fail masonry walls -- whether structural or curtain -- so that they do not accidentally act in compression. They are not needed, and hence not used, in non-masonry curtain walls (e.g., glass and/or aluminum). They would be out of place in destroying the WTC 7 structure by implosion.

Why don't we see these aerosol puffs in controlled demolitions of steel-framed buildings that do not require squibs in the curtain walls? Because of how those buildings are meant to fail. You may cut some shear planes higher up, but most of the cutting happens down low, on the first one or two floors. Imagine what would happen if you suddenly evaporated the lower 40 feet of any structure. It would be suddenly in free-fall. There is no more load between, say, the 40th and 41st floor. Now imagine that you tilt the structure slightly so that when erstwhile columns on the collapse front hit the ground, they are eccentrically loaded and not axially loaded. Thus the loads are not transmitted all the way up the structure and don't cause failures way up high.

The WTC 7 structure failed all along its height and breadth, piecemeal, over a period of several seconds. Much of that has obviously been hidden by the curtain walls, but it can be seen in a careful examination of the video. The puffs of aerosol are more likely to be joint failures as critical loads ripple through the structure. The way the front face shows puffs in a sort of V-shaped progression up the front is exactly the pattern in which we would expect the structure to respond -- and fail -- due to a major failure lower down -- say, on the fire-affected floors and the location of the key transfer trusses over the power substation. Point failures on the 5th or 7th floor can create V-shaped progressive failures up to, say, the 30th floor.

The WTC 7 failure, carefully examined, shows me exactly what I would expect to see in the progressive failure of such a structure due to critical overloading at places where the structure becomes non-uniform and thus may concentrate load paths. And frankly I don't really care what self-proclaimed "physicists" surmise instead, or even professors of physics who don't appear to have studied or practiced any of the relevant branches of physics. It's plain that none of these people have had the lab experience that all engineers undergo, which why their support is coming only from the Fetzers of the world.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'm not equipped to argue the science of this issue, but there's something else in your post I can comment on.

What I can't fathom is not that the U.S. government would commit a heinous crime on its citizens. It's that they'd seriously consider such a foolish heinous crime.

It's foolish because if they tried to pull off something like blowing up the WTC, the risk of being unmasked by a leak would be enormous. And if the conspiracy were unmasked, the political adversaries of the Republican Party would eat it for breakfast, bones and all. It would be The End of the Republican Party in the U.S. Whatever political advantages you imagine they might get from such a stunt, would be far outweighted by the risk.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Good grief. Ten pages and counting. I've been staying out of this thread because it's bad for my blood pressure, but I just can't take it any more.Disinfo Agent is absolutely right. But there's more...

The conspiracy advocates want us to believe not just that the Gummint is foolish enough to try to do this, but they're stupid enough to do it in such a half-cocked manner. If, as seems to be the CT consensus, this was all designed to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, wouldn't the Gummint have planted some evidence implicating Iraq?

Not one of the people responsible (or, to CTs, allegedly responsible), came from Iraq, or had any connection with the Iraqi government. The administration has tried to make that connection, but a pretty good percentage of us never believed it, and I think it's safe to say a majority now don't. And yet, all it would have taken on 9/11 would have been a couple of pieces of fake ID. We're expected to believe that an organisation clever enough to plant and detonate explosives in the WTC without being caught isn't clever enough to create a few bogus passports?

This topic sounds very serious, are you sure it has to be discussed in these forums?

__________________
You live and you learn. At any rate, you live.