Need help with a CTer "asking questions"

8den

Graduate Poster
8den
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
1,293
A CTer on another forum has poised this question;

i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????
Click to expand...

Now I've got him on the ropes pointing out this isn't a theory it's a question, I'd like to finish him with some nice cold hard facts, anyone care to debunk this?
 
Well, one of the key issues would be the locations necessary to place the charges.

CTers traditionally seem to assume that the explosives could be placed just about anywhere, however we know from photgraphic evidence that the external load bearing envelope deflected (buckled) immediately prior to collapse.

At this point the CTers rather lose the plot, as such a pattern can only be explained by deformation or failure of the floor trusses. Therefore the explosives would have to be placed at one or more of:

1. The junction of the trusses and the external envelope

2. The junction of the trusses and the core columns

3. The web of the floor trusses.

In all cases, a significant proportion of each floor would have to be rigged in order to achieve the necessary collapse pattern.

Options 1 and 2 are, to all intents and purposes, inaccessible; if you look at the pictures of the fireproofing and construction shots you will appreciate the sheer amount of casings, etc. which would have to be removed in order to place the material.

Option 3 is a bit more intriguing. Assuming that the towers had a normal suspended ceiling arrangement, access to the webs would be rather easy. However :
  • the chance of inadvertent discovery in the course of normal maintenance would also be extremely high.
  • they would be extremely susceptible to damage during the impact, explosion, and fire.
  • if any of the device explosions were witnessed (for example during premature detonation) then it would be a complete giveaway.
These are just musings; others' thoughts welcome.
 
i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????
Click to expand...
9 levels? Huh? Why do you need charges in 9 levels? Which 9? The 9 in the collapse zone? Does he think that once the collapse started, it would proceed w/o the use the demolition (that would mean he's alot smarter than most CTers)? If so then why do we need charges? To start the collapse?

Does that mean he thinks the pilots were aiming at a particular part of the building? After all, there are only 9 floors with charges... If he doesn't hit the right place in the building... the collapse will start in the wrong place. If so, how does he think the charges survived the impact?

My answer to the question would be... Placing the charges on 9 levels is the easy part. Finding explosives that don't many any noise and are plane-impact resistant, that's the hard part.

​
 
At the end of the day, their biggest problem is (I suppose) the complete and utter lack of any meaningful evidence - in stark contrast to the accepted account of the collapse.
 
You also have to have a plane that strikes perfectly at the levels where your charges are set to go off, to make it look like the impact from the plane did it (since collapse started there).

Then you have the problem of the plane impacting right in the spot where your timers and detonators and wiring is. Remember, if some of your bombs are damaged and don't go off, and the building doesn't fall, you'll have unexploded bombs sitting around for rescue workers to find and report.

That's the rub right there, beyond all the details about engineering and architecture. There are so many things that could go wrong with the plan it's ludicrous. Any slight misstep (including the plane accidentally striking just 10% further down the building) would ruin the plan and make it blatantly obvious to the world and would end the lives of every powerful person supposedly involved.

Not to mention the danger of being caught wiring up just those nine floors. That's still a HUGE number of charges, to place without being caught by security or maintenance or police or bomb sniffing dogs or casual witnesses walking by. You've got to get the charges and the crews inside the building, you've got to cover up their work every day so that the thousands of people walking past the next day don't notice it...
 
Aye, but they'd have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids.....
 
Also, the killer blow:

There are no structural engineers or controlled demolition experts in the entire world who believe 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives.
 
and to add to Nick's post: if all structural engineers (Which can range in millions in the numbers) in the world don't agree with the explosives, how much do you think that they need to be paid off to not say anything?
 
everyone knows that architects is just another cool way to say arts student that has a basic knowledge of physics :D

Just kidding my friend :)
 
Hey, at my university architecture was part of the Engineering faculty! Although for some reason we all got BScs for our first degree!!! You're thinking of these [rules8]s over at Glasgow School of Art....;)
 
yeah, we don't have that at the University of Toronto. The architecture profs can't even do basic math! That's what I heard, I'm in the Human bio division of the university, and they're worse than the engineering people!
 
The Silver Shadow said:
yeah, we don't have that at the University of Toronto. The architecture profs can't even do basic math! That's what I heard, I'm in the Human bio division of the university, and they're worse than the engineering people!
Click to expand...

Well I can't speak for Canada but every other country I'm aware of makes their architects do at least 2 years of compulsory structures - generally Higher/A level/SYS maths is required. :confused:
 
This might help:

http://www.canadian-universities.net/Universities/Programs/Architecture_and_Architectural.html

<snip>Prerequisites Needed to Study Architecture and Architectural in Canada

Admission to architecture programs is generally competitive, and a portfolio of examples of one’s creative and/or design work is usually required. Because architecture is a unique mixture of engineering and art, students must have a strong background in mathematics, physics, communication skills and the fine arts. Since there is now a strong reliance on computers in architectural design, students should be computer-literate as well.
Click to expand...
 
Even ignoring the obvious points others have raised with the actual ability to pull off planting explosives in multiple floors,

The collapse of the towers was forseen a good length of time before collapse because both the FDNY and the NYPD saw telltale signs of imminent structural failure - for the FDNY it was damage/structural movement in the lobby, and for the NYPD it was the gradual inward bowing of the exterior columns in the collapse zone.

A controlled demolition does not explain these two observations which are BOTH supported by photographic evidence and radio communication records.

-Gumboot
 
NickUK said:
Wasn't pancaking discounted anyway?
Click to expand...
Yes. 8den, the NIST report explicitly refutes "pancaking" as the cause of the tower collapses, so your opponent's use of that term is either a strawman argument or a sign that he/she hasn't even read the NIST FAQ, much less the executive summaries or the whole report.
 
Gravy said:
Yes. 8den, the NIST report explicitly refutes "pancaking" as the cause of the tower collapses, so your opponent's use of that term is either a strawman argument or a sign that he/she hasn't even read the NIST FAQ, much less the executive summaries or the whole report.
Click to expand...


Ta gravy much appreicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom