CD Impossible: Facts

[chipmunk stew]

Thanks for the welcome.

Being new I am unsure of the protoco. Also I believe the terms when you sign up suggest content remains copywrited to the site, so dont want to rock the apple cart there.

I think you're safe just providing a link to a thread.

Finally, if this guy is this good. I would love to see what else he has done - And advertise it

True that!

 

[dirtywick]

Actually, I think its good to link to this on CT sites. If anyone is going to point out mistakes or misinterpret something giving me the chance to correct it or clarify, it's them.

For instance, chipmunk stew linked to a site earlier in this thread (thanks for providing the link btw) and one of the guys pointed out two things s/he interpreted differently than I expected, and as it turns out were simply bad word choice and not enough information to make my point clear. The next guy that reads it won't suffer through my mistakes.

I like any criticism on it, it helps me create a more complete paper, you know?

 

[dirtywick]

To 1) hype the site and because 2) I'm proud of myself, the paper is up:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC_CD.pdfhttp://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

I even got a criticism already! No official calling me a shill yet though.

 

[Arus808]

^^ just a word of note, you might want to do these guys a favor and not display their email addresses so publically, so that they end up receiving more spam.

Use Hex coding or similar (javascript) to display them.

 

[Human]

Any critical thinkers here?

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.

“Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives.”

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

“none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall.”

You have not done your research.

“Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye.”

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

“I’m going to focus solely on WTC7”

Not true. You didn’t and don’t.

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

“Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives…” “pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found)”

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

“the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright.”

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them. In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.


“In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well.”

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates. The entire building was not at these temperatures as you allude earlier. As far as WTC7 goes, the fire was not throughout the building and probably not hot enough.

“What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all.”

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner. This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done. The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

 

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Human. Be sure to check out the other subforums: there's a ton of interesting stuff being discussed that's not CT-related.

You made a very poor start here. You know very little about the issues you raised. As for WTC 7, I encourage you to read the paper I posted this week. It will show you how terribly misinformed you are about that subject. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
or
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Oh, please explain, in detail, how only 20 people could have been "in the know." Thanks.

eta: And is it really your contention that no buildings have collapsed totally from something other than demolition? Please explain.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.

ive often suggested the C shoudl stand for "coverup"

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

the powerdown involved half of one tower and was reported by 1 person, who worked as a datacenter technician, and his company ahd a server cluster at the WTC, sicne i hokld a similar job i can assure you there was someone in that office throughout the powerdown procedure

could you please provide a source for "the closing down of whole floors" this si the first ive heard of it

You have not done your research.

perhaps you could provide with testimony of people (plural) who noticed strange things

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

how long would it take 20 people to rig 2 100 story towers and 1 47 story tower with enough explosives to bring them down?

how do you explain the thousands of civil and structural engineers who see nothign wrong with the official story?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate.

who might that be? please note that steven jones is not a metalurgist, and he did not find a "charisteric sign of thermate" he found sulphur, which is present in drywall

The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result.

not quite, there are multiple more reasonable explanations, many of which have been discussed here

Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use.

again, sulphur is not evidence of thermate

The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

please enlighten us as to how thermate can cut diagonally and in a perfect straight line (youve obviously never seen the stuff in action)

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell.

on what are you basing this assertation?

After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.

a single firefighter resported 2 isolated fires on floor 78, the NIST computer models confirm this, the worst fires were 2-3 floors above this

In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.

who wants to play "Name That Fallacy"

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates.

could you please provide us with this evidence?

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself?

ever wonder why they dont use explosive demolition methods for damaged buildings?

That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

wow, even if you would have said "third steel framed building" youd still be incredibly wrong

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence.

anarchic law?

It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner.

nobody in control = anarchy

All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

please describe what these 20 people would each have to do to rig to the towers, divert/hijack/control the planes, detonate, supress evidence, fool thousands of engineers, and keep everyone else quiet

 

[Pardalis]

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

What about the black out? Do you seriously think "they" could rig up for demolition two of the tallest buildings in the world, and a third during this black out? Was this "black out" in all three buildings by the way?

You have not done your research.

Have you? Show it to me, show me any testimony of anyone saying that they saw anything suspicious about the walls within the WTC before the attacks. Show me.

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

How did you come up with that estimate?

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

How is this a "straw man" fallacy?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

This has been debunked many times here. Read Gravy's links.

So much crap to debunk all at the same time... That's the exact modus operandi of the CTists, to jump from one topic to the next even within the same post... If you want a serious discussion, let's focus on one thing at a time.

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence.

Wow.

It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner.

What kind of theory would that be?

This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done.

This is a public forum, you can do whatever you want, nobody is obligated to agree with anyone. That's the beauty of democracy.

The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

If this ever leads to some "frontal lobe" theory, I'm going to freak out.

 

[R.Mackey]

You have not done your research.

Welcome to the forums.

It might interest you to know that every single argument that you've brought here has been discussed, in depth. On that basis, I can confidently say that we have, in fact, done our research.

If you want to bring us something new, please do. We're always interested in new evidence.

Regarding your complaints about our position, let me tackle a couple:

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

Let's see this estimate. I want to see your theory about how 20 people "pulled [your alternate theory] off." So what is your theory, and how does it total to 20 people?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

I assume, regarding the "slag," you're talking about this FEMA report. It shows nothing of the kind, as I answer here.

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.

Small fires, huh. Pictures in the NIST report, something you surely must have seen since -- unlike us -- you've "done the research," show otherwise.

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

You're scratching your head because -- surprise! -- you haven't done the research. Tell us what's wrong with the current working hypothesis, not your own uneducated guesses.

The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

Cognitive dissonance, huh. You sound familiar...

So how about you respond to Gravy's paper? You know, like with some facts? So far all you've done is accused us of "not doing the research," while being demonstrably guilty of that yourself.

 

[twinstead]

Yikes

Of course it would only take 20 people or so. It HAS to have had to even give the CT a chance of being true. Of course the sulfur can only be from thermate, not from the drywall, because it HAS to have been for the conspiracy to take place.

People who start with a predisposed opinion and work backwards trying to find evidence to support it give real investigators a bad name. They have no business investigating where they left their watch last night more less a complex event like 911.

 

[Pardalis]

Cognitive dissonance, huh. You sound familiar...

Damn, Mackey, why did you have to bring her up?

 

[R.Mackey]

Damn, Mackey, why did you have to bring her up?

I didn't (and don't) pick on her specifically. I've just seen the "cognitive dissonance" thing bandied about quite a bit. Did a search, she came up.

Although you were pretty on-target with the "frontal lobe" catch.

Not only do 9/11 Deniers recycle each others' tired arguments, they even recycle each others' verbiage. It's amazing.

 

[dirtywick]

Thanks for your interest and criticism.

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.

The bias is intentional.

Just to ask, what would be a better term in your opinion?

“Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives.”

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

“none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall.”

You have not done your research.

“Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye.”

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

The purpose of those statements is to dismiss any of those other, common arguments against WTC7 CD and to shift the focus solely on explosives. Whether or not they're true or even possible isn't relevant; for the purpose of this paper I'm assuming they are true.

“I’m going to focus solely on WTC7”

Not true. You didn’t and don’t.

Yes I did. If you follow to the footnotes, any and all of the data gathered about the conditions of the building, such as temperature and impact, are from sources that focus directly on WTC7.

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

I've seen sites that use calculations on explosives from amatol to thermate. Look for yourself, people have been using many explosives, it's all available through google. Besides, it's not so much of a fact as a lead in into why I'm looking at multiple explosives rather than a specific one.

“Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives…” “pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found)”

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

According to the NIST FAQ, which is cited, there is no evidence although they are considering it as a hypothesis.

Of course, if you could site a credible source or two I'll gladly change that to something else which fits the data in any future revisions. Until then, since I have no personal experience in testing the metal found at WTC7, I'm forced to agree with what the NIST and other sources say.

“the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright.”

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them. In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.

“In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well.”

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates. The entire building was not at these temperatures as you allude earlier. As far as WTC7 goes, the fire was not throughout the building and probably not hot enough.

“What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all.”

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

I've cited several estimates of the temperature in WTC7 from different sources. The FEMA report and a CT site doing a bunch of calculations gave estimates, they're in the footnotes. You're more than welcome to follow the links and decide for yourself whether or not it's credible, but again I'm forced to agree with the sources.

It's hard to tell where the thermite plants would be placed and what the temperature near them would have been. Nothing is that specific that I could find. Do you have anything to show any of that? If so, please link it or e-mail it.

What I know from the sources I used is that parts of the building were impacted and at high temperatures, and it appears that it's a significant portion. In no way did I imply that no explosives would have survived anywhere in the building, however due to the properties of the explosives, detonators, and remote detonation systems used, my own conclusion based on this data is it would be unlikely that a large portion of them survived the initial impact, and many of what would have remained would have been damaged by the heat or fire, and that the neat CD CTers like push simply wouldn't be possible.

Come to think of it, I didn't even imply that explosives weren't in the building! Of course, that's what I believe, but still.

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner. This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done. The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

I've gotten criticism already through e-mail and elsewhere. I cannot control what other people do, and I'm glad you took the time to criticize it yourself. It seems you are your own hope and the counter to what you find distasteful. Good for you.

Of course it remains that I feel the information in the paper is as correct as it can be given the data we know, and with you not providing a single link or source to your counters, I don't have much of a reason to change my mind. Thanks for your time though, I'll take what you said and look for improvements that can be made in the future.

 

[Pardalis]

Not only do 9/11 Deniers recycle each others' tired arguments, they even recycle each others' verbiage. It's amazing.

Yeah, and I find it particularly insulting when they try to attribute logical fallacies on us. It's like a mental patient trying to diagnose his therapist.

 

[Crungy]

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before
nt here.

More idiocy exploiting the intellectual shortcomings of the quarter pounders (bad SP pun) of the population.

As I mentioned on another thread, I work in the design industry going on 13 years. I also work in a 47 story high rise. It is very common for a building to have 'construction' occuring on a floor at any given time. This is even more so in an older building such as the former WTC towers. Aesthics change and the technology in the building infrastructure quickly becomes out of date. You'd be surprised at how fast the appeal of a trophy building, such as the Sears Tower, or the John Hanncock fades. Tenants are always moving in and out of buildings. The lease is up, the company has grown or shrank, the current digs no longer meet their requirements. That, or simpley the company is looking for cheaper real estate.

Looking back at the 5 years I've spent in my current company. I orginally started on the 41st floor, where my company had half the floor. We then acquired the entire 38th floor, redesigned it, 'construction' did their dirty work, and we moved in. While I was on the 41st floor, the law company moved out and another company moved in, but not before 'construction' (accompanied by spooky theremin music) did their evil deed. While we move out of 41, more 'construction' followed in our wake. About a year after we moved into 38, we started to hear loud 'construction' on the floor below! It was the French consulate getting ready to move in. Also, each month the ride up and down the elevator reveals more 'construction' occuring on various floors. The horror! The horror!

To summarize, you're less likely to find a building without construction occuring in an urban high rise then you are with the jackhammers batterin'. But it'll still be a good half dozen years before the quarter pounders get out of high school and into an office building, where they'll be able to discover it for themselves.

 

[LashL]

This is nothing short of the utter destruction of the CD theory. There's just no answer to it other than saying "you're a government shill!" He didn't even misuse plurals.

Nominated.

Great work, dirtywick!

And, hey, for the record, jhunter, all of those misused plurals of which you speak have been corrected

 

[uruk]

Here's an interesting video decribing the causes for the WTC collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY&NR

 

[Mancman]

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.

They did penetrate the cores. Plane fragments went straight through it, embedding themselves in perimeter columns on the other side. In WTC1 a landing gear went straight through the core and out of the other side of the building:

The NIST computer simulations found that 30% of the jet fuel was burned in the initial impact of Flight 11, and 30-40% in the impact of Flight 175. Not 'mainly'.

Oh yeah, the fires were small, sure. Tiny. Barely noticeable.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, nice, cool fires. Jeebus.

​

 

[GlennB]

Excellent article dirtywick.

As some have said, most CT'ists out there will close their minds as soon as they get the gist of your writing. Some, however, have been swayed by the pseudo-science of CT and may be open to correction. Your article could be the one to do the trick