Tricky Ways To Pull Down A Skyscraper

[Fonebone]

Tell you what ergo, point us to one video (or audio) recording from 9/11 that captured the sound of explosives.

Bet you can't.

Here is a on-scene reporter reporting live from ground zero on 9-11-2001
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6702140#post6702140


5:48 into the video reporter screams at the video camera
" HUGE EXPLOSION ! " as the tower collapses in the background.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

A) You're welcome

B) BWAAAAHAAHAHAAA!!

 

[jaydeehess]

Here is a on-scene reporter reporting live from ground zero on 9-11-2001
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6702140#post6702140


5:48 into the video reporter screams at the video camera
" HUGE EXPLOSION ! " as the tower collapses in the background.

So it captured the sound of the reporter's voice characterizing the collapse as a huge explosion but did not capture the actual sound of a huge explosion. Is that what you are pointing out to us?

 

[Redwood]

So it captured the sound of the reporter's voice characterizing the collapse as a huge explosion but did not capture the actual sound of a huge explosion. Is that what you are pointing out to us?

Hey, maybe another magic property of nanothermite is that is can be "tuned" to make a huge explosive sound that's audible to humans but won't record on any device!

 

[Justin39640]

I like that he used a video that explains exactly why it's not a huge explosion.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I like that he used a video that explains exactly why it's not a huge explosion.

But the reporter called it a huge explosion, and we all know reporters don't lie.

 

[Mark F]

But the reporter called it a huge explosion, and we all know reporters don't lie.

You can't trust the MSM! The reporter was in on it. This was an inside job by the media to diguise the fact terrorists did 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

You can't trust the MSM! The reporter was in on it. This was an inside job by the media to diguise the fact terrorists did 9/11.

The BBC jumped the gun with the 7WTC report and in this video the audio guy forgot to add in the sound of a huge explosion which the reported read off his script.
D'uh!

 

[david.watts]

Point: ae911 is not fighting those here at JREF. ae911 is fighting NIST "out there" in the public realm. ae911 believes the only explanation is CD. NIST is the support -- in the public realm -- for WTC7 not being a CD. Most people are not into the details of 9/11 like you are here at JREF. The simple "out" for people regarding WTC7 is the National Institute of Standards and Technology saying that they have shown that the collapse was not a CD. The media in general are not into the details of 9/11; at least not publicly . The media invokes the NIST report. To undermine NIST and their report with complete, transparent legitimacy, ae911 wants and needs all of the information NIST used. If NIST has information they will not release, why will they not release it? Here it is said they have released all that is relevant or needed. But is that really the case? There seems to be a whole lot that is not just pertinent, but critical for understanding … how NIST derived their theory:

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

Since the “reason” for not releasing everything is that it “might jeopardize public safety” which is indefensible and the only possible "good" reason to not release everything would be if they are hiding something, they are hiding something. Why?

How does NOT releasing the following protect public safety?

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


(Note: ae911 can already show the NIST report is bogus due to the fact NIST has already done it by themselves by showing their model does not work e.g., 5.5” vs 6.5”. Again, ae911 arguments are for the public domain and not just here at JREF. It is more than well understood that the NIST report means nothing in this forum to at least two of you: JSanderO and ozeco. I understand. Proving the report false proves nothing. But in the public domain, the choice is the NIST Report, or CD.)

 

[ozeco41]

Point: ae911 is not fighting those here at JREF. ae911 is fighting NIST "out there" in the public realm. ae911 believes the only explanation is CD. NIST is the support -- in the public realm -- for WTC7 not being a CD. Most people are not into the details of 9/11 like you are here at JREF. The simple "out" for people regarding WTC7 is the National Institute of Standards and Technology saying that they have shown that the collapse was not a CD. The media in general are not into the details of 9/11; at least not publicly . The media invokes the NIST report. To undermine NIST and their report with complete, transparent legitimacy, ae911 wants and needs all of the information NIST used. If NIST has information they will not release, why will they not release it? Here it is said they have released all that is relevant or needed. But is that really the case? There seems to be a whole lot that is not just pertinent, but critical for understanding … how NIST derived their theory:...

Wrong in many ways David.

AE911 claims CD. There is no case for CD - there has never been a plausible prima facie case for CD.

There are two ranges of issues here:
1) General policy as to whether a public authority should release data - independent of the honesty or otherwise of the party wanting the data; THEN
2) Whether NIST should acquiesce to AE911 specifically.

It is well established that, among other things, AE911 has no case to support CD; that AE911 is provenly dishonest/untruthful in its claims on technical matters AND AE911 will use any data to create - lets call it "mischief".

So in the overall community perspective we have:
1) a small group of untruthful persons acting as a pressure lobby but clearly not interested in their primary claim for a "new investigation" AND
2) A much larger group - the community at large - who would probably split two ways into:
a) "Tell the silly b's to get lost"; AND
b) "Let them have it - it will shut them up."

Well it wont "shut them up" - whether they get the data or not AE911 record is clear - they will twist/distort/lie to present whatever their alleged claim still is; AND they will do so to extend Gages salary income above all else.

And whether to give in to them or not is clearly a political decision.

The true basis of the political decision is "Why acquiesce to a lobby group which is or is rapidly becoming irrelevant" - and that would be the judgement of most politicians totally unaffected by how many AE911 supporters delude themselves into thinking they are relevant and significant on the political scene.

 

[JSanderO]

Wrong in many ways David.

AE911 claims CD. There is no case for CD - there has never been a plausible prima facie case for CD.

There are two ranges of issues here:
1) General policy as to whether a public authority should release data - independent of the honesty or otherwise of the party wanting the data; THEN
2) Whether NIST should acquiesce to AE911 specifically.

It is well established that, among other things, AE911 has no case to support CD; that AE911 is provenly dishonest/untruthful in its claims on technical matters AND AE911 will use any data to create - lets call it "mischief".

So in the overall community perspective we have:
1) a small group of untruthful persons acting as a pressure lobby but clearly not interested in their primary claim for a "new investigation" AND
2) A much larger group - the community at large - who would probably split two ways into:
a) "Tell the silly b's to get lost"; AND
b) "Let them have it - it will shut them up."

Well it wont "shut them up" - whether they get the data or not AE911 record is clear - they will twist/distort/lie to present whatever their alleged claim still is; AND they will do so to extend Gages salary income above all else.

And whether to give in to them or not is clearly a political decision.

The true basis of the political decision is "Why acquiesce to a lobby group which is or is rapidly becoming irrelevant" - and that would be the judgement of most politicians totally unaffected by how many AE911 supporters delude themselves into thinking they are relevant and significant on the political scene.

Well stated. AE911T has not made a compelling case to any professional organization such as the ASCE. The case they have made is full of error and lots of smoke and mirrors and shock and awe which has been bought by naive disgruntled people hook line and sinker. If NIST has reviewed AE911T's presentation I am imagine they consider them to be irresponsible, making wild unfounded claims and not acting in the public interest. So believing this to be the case... why would any agency turn over data to a group which appears to cook the books to support their pre determined conclusion.

I am sure if errors of consequence are demonstrated by any group in the public NIST will acknowledge and issue errata... or corrections. They produced a model not a moment by moment play by play of what happened to the buildings.

AE has produced nothing compelling for years... or changed their talking points despite virtually all of them having been shown to be false or irrelevant.

 

[alienentity]

Wrong in many ways David.

AE911 claims CD. There is no case for CD - there has never been a plausible prima facie case for CD.

There are two ranges of issues here:
1) General policy as to whether a public authority should release data - independent of the honesty or otherwise of the party wanting the data; THEN
2) Whether NIST should acquiesce to AE911 specifically.

It is well established that, among other things, AE911 has no case to support CD; that AE911 is provenly dishonest/untruthful in its claims on technical matters AND AE911 will use any data to create - lets call it "mischief".

So in the overall community perspective we have:
1) a small group of untruthful persons acting as a pressure lobby but clearly not interested in their primary claim for a "new investigation" AND
2) A much larger group - the community at large - who would probably split two ways into:
a) "Tell the silly b's to get lost"; AND
b) "Let them have it - it will shut them up."

Well it wont "shut them up" - whether they get the data or not AE911 record is clear - they will twist/distort/lie to present whatever their alleged claim still is; AND they will do so to extend Gages salary income above all else.

And whether to give in to them or not is clearly a political decision.

The true basis of the political decision is "Why acquiesce to a lobby group which is or is rapidly becoming irrelevant" - and that would be the judgement of most politicians totally unaffected by how many AE911 supporters delude themselves into thinking they are relevant and significant on the political scene.

I can imagine NIST managers consulting with their legal counsel as to whether they have an obligation to release certain data to AE911Truth specifically.
Seeing that AE911Truth has no intention of working with any university engineering department on a professional, official basis, it would follow that NIST may feel the request is not to be granted.

If AE911Truth wants to take legal action, they should.

btw, David is just here to try to wear you down and trip you up. He's not trying to learn what really happened, rather he wants to see if he can find a sufficient 'gotcha' from the replies which can be used against critics of the controlled demolition hypothesis. That's my opinion.

 

[david.watts]

JSanderO and ozeco,

I have about two minutes. Quick response. You know they believe 100% CD's. You 100% believe not. You fall back on what you think the null is. ae911 and the rest of us do not agree that your hypothesis is the null. And the reason starts with the so many reasons we think there is no way for the official story to be even possibly true. So we think that puts us in the "null position." You disagree. I understand that. I understand why. We disagree and maybe that is where I will go next. We -- its me speaking for "we" -- believe you need to prove all collapses were due to damage and fire. We have not gotten in to the TT. But as far as WTC7, you have come up with only some extremely unlikely possibility that caused its collapse. And again, this "null" thing doesn't transfer very well to the public domain. ae911 obviously believes 100% what they do. They are genuine in their beliefs as are all or most truthers. They are fighting for what they believe and they are focused on 7 to try to change the greater discourse.in the public domain and not at JREF.

Got to go. Back later.

 

[JSanderO]

JSanderO and ozeco,

I have about two minutes. Quick response. You know they believe 100% CD's. You 100% believe not. You fall back on what you think the null is. ae911 and the rest of us do not agree that your hypothesis is the null. And the reason starts with the so many reasons we think there is no way for the official story to be even possibly true. So we think that puts us in the "null position." You disagree. I understand that. I understand why. We disagree and maybe that is where I will go next. We -- its me speaking for "we" -- believe you need to prove all collapses were due to damage and fire. We have not gotten in to the TT. But as far as WTC7, you have come up with only some extremely unlikely possibility that caused its collapse. And again, this "null" thing doesn't transfer very well to the public domain. ae911 obviously believes 100% what they do. They are genuine in their beliefs as are all or most truthers. They are fighting for what they believe and they are focused on 7 to try to change the greater discourse.in the public domain and not at JREF.

Got to go. Back later.

David,

The burden of proof rests on those with extraordinary claims. The buildings collapsed. Admittedly these were the first to do so as they did, but also the first to endure unfought fires, 2 with jumbos slamming into them and all three very unorthodox designs..ie not run of the mill skyscrapers.

Heat weakens steel. This does not have to be proven. Collapsing lightweight no stone aggregate "concrete" will easily pulverize with impact collisions. Joints are much weaker than the sections they join and frames will break at the joints when loads seek alternate load paths. Joint failure is in evidence in all three collapses. The buildings were 95% air and no columns were crushed ergo the duration of the collapses are not unexpected and all were at about the same rate of speed. The size and form of the debris field is what one would expect considering the center of mass and the mass distribution. Rapidly progressing cascading runaway system failure is not unknown and structures are subject to such failures... ie not arresting.

The collapse look like CDs because CDs ARE collapses!

I am not a NISTIAN and don't defend their theories... Let others do that. And let the CDers make a compelling case for CD. They clearly have not . Their disbelief is does not default to CD... and make others prove it wasn't a CD.

 

[ozeco41]

JSanderO and ozeco,

I have about two minutes. Quick response.

David what you post is a parody of the "null hypothesis" concept of the scientific method.

Trying to attribute "their" (and "your") wrong logic to my "belief" will not work.

You know they believe 100% CD's.

Actually I know no such thing as a single global fact. I know in varying degrees four of their key players. Gage by published statements, Deets, Sarns and Szamboti by interaction on forums in that chronological order. All of them demonstrate sufficient intelligence to be aware that what they claim for CD is opposed by all sectors of legitimate professional opinion. Three of them know by personal experience that I have presented them reasoned counter claims which they have never rebutted. I know by personal experience that those three are in various ways untruthful. The untruthful aspects of Gage's positions observable from his published statements.

All four of them make proclamations abut CD without reference to the contrary opinions. That position is professionally untenable for Gage and Szamboti - not sure about Deets. Those two at least are professionally dishonest.

You 100% believe not. You fall back on what you think the null is.

The null or default I have posted for you several times, For WTC1 and WTC 2 it is undeniable that planes struck towers, started fires, more damage accumulated, top block fell and tower collapsed. The undeniable hypothesis from that point is plane impact and fire damage caused collapse. You cannot deny that legitimately. If you do you either do not comprehend scientific method or you are lying. And it is nothing to do with whether I believe it or not. It is the juxtaposition of a number of facts which are true facts whether or not I believe them individually OR their cumulative effect. And you cannot deny them.

The next step for AE911, Gage or any other of their kind is to produce a better hypothesis which modifies or supplants the one I just posted which is my hypothesis but happens to also be the core of the 'Official Version' or "the Common Narrative" They have never done so. You have never done so. And I have given you this crystal clear message several times.

ae911 and the rest of us do not agree that your hypothesis is the null.

Tough. you are wrong and I can prove it easily except you will not play the process through. Try this:
A) Did a plane strike the tower (whichever one out of WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11. If you answer "yes" we progress. If you answer "No" I could call you liar - I won't I will simply discontinue playing your evasive games.
B) Did the plane strike cause damage and start fires. "Yes" or "No" - same criteria as previous.
C) Did the fires continue unfought? "Yes" or "No" same criteria.
D) Did the "Top Block" start to fall. "Yes" or "No" etc
E) Did "global collapse' result. "Yes" or "No" etc

Every one of those items of fact has evidence in the public domain. All are true facts and the default hypothesis is therefore "impact damage and fires caused collapse.

That hypothesis MAY not be perfect. You say that it isn't. Great. THERE is your starting point. Modify that hypothesis OR produce a better hypothesis SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

Now present the additional facts you (or AE911) rely on in favour of CD and be prepared to support them.

And the reason starts with the so many reasons we think there is no way for the official story to be even possibly true.

I'm not even discussing the official explanation. I have presented you with an hypothesis which you have not and cannot counter or improve.

So we think that puts us in the "null position."

"You" ("we" and "us" as you describe yourselves) are WRONG. no ifs no buts. Wrong. Stop claiming you have presented an hypothesis and put up or shut up.

You disagree. I understand that. I understand why. We disagree and maybe that is where I will go next.

you are wasting your time if you want to introduce your arse about parody of process. I will stick firmly by the relevant principles of the scientific method. Those relevant bits which apply to this process of engineering forensics.

( Alternatively publish your "Rules of Discussion" and see if you can persuade me or any other members to play the game by your rules. I'll bet you are not game to put in the one that says "AE911 is right until someone proves them wrong without AE911 being required to produce evidence or reasoning" >> What you want looks stupid when I state it explicitly doesn't it? )

We -- its me speaking for "we" -- believe you need to prove all collapses were due to damage and fire.

That is the commonest childish trick of you and your dishonest AE911 members. It is called reversing the burden of proof. You claim that I haven't disproved that Santa's Custard Collapsed the WTC Towers. And your claim is that ridiculous that I should apologise to Santa. Get real. Try discussing by legitimate process. Let me try it on you. "D.W you shot JFK - prove that you didn't." Childish nonsense.

We have not gotten in to the TT. But as far as WTC7, you have come up with only some extremely unlikely possibility that caused its collapse. And again, this "null" thing doesn't transfer very well to the public domain. ae911 obviously believes 100% what they do. They are genuine in their beliefs as are all or most truthers. They are fighting for what they believe and they are focused on 7 to try to change the greater discourse.in the public domain and not at JREF.

Some may be genuinely deluded. It is not my responsibility to cure them of their delusions. Very few truthers still discussing in the public arena of these forums are honest. The honest ones mostly saw the light back in 2006-7-8-9 and left the arena of debate.

The rest are driven by other agendas OR are newcomers to the scene not yet aware of the truth OR are so seriously deluded that they need help from professions other than engineering, applied physics or law.

Got to go. Back later.

Why not make the big decision and decide to play this game by the legitimate and well defined rules of discourse for a civilised community operating as a democracy under the rule of law. Because it is in those arenas where your fundamental problems lie.

 

[ozeco41]

I can imagine NIST managers consulting with their legal counsel as to whether they have an obligation to release certain data to AE911Truth specifically.
Seeing that AE911Truth has no intention of working with any university engineering department on a professional, official basis, it would follow that NIST may feel the request is not to be granted.

I have worked at the same level of government policy. Not on disaster management but at the interface of public utility services with environmental activists.

As a PR policy issue it is more difficult than "CD at WTC on 9/11" because there is no case, never has been a case for CD at WTC. Interface sewage outflows with environmental activism and it is a whole world partial truths.

Two obvious key PR Policy Issues for NIST -
1)"How open do you play it?" where they have been open with e.g. the Chandler free fall at WTC7 and copped all the misrepresentation of that non-event; AND
2) Can you resist AE911 demands because they are evil whilst acceding to professional requests from the "goodies". When overriding policy almost certainly says "treat everyone equally".

So been there, done that, And I have empathy for the challenges in this area for NIST. Which doesn't mean I agree 100% with NIST's findings btw.

btw, David is just here to try to wear you down and trip you up. He's not trying to learn what really happened, rather he wants to see if he can find a sufficient 'gotcha' from the replies which can be used against critics of the controlled demolition hypothesis. That's my opinion.

Hey I never though of that one.....

Seriously - yes - could be. I doubt that he is being that devious. And I'll manage it if ever he or his associates try any trickery. This forum activity is not life threatening - merely mental exercise at a moderate level. Try reading the "Limits of Bazant's applicability[sic]" thread....by my measure that was a grade or two higher challenge than this little fracas - both in technicality and in managing the stakeholder groups.

 

[DGM]

Here it is said they have released all that is relevant or needed. But is that really the case? There seems to be a whole lot that is not just pertinent, but critical for understanding … how NIST derived their theory:

There is. Like I said before, you need to be competent in structural engineering.

One other thing. I for one have never claimed they released "all that was relevant or needed". I said all the needed input data is in the reports. You seem to like to twist what people say.

 

[david.watts]

Ok. Are you ready? It is 3 am and not 100% sober. Ok? Ok, maybe I am not ready either. But... here goes.... To a post above: while it may seem to you, that I want to "twist what people say," no, I do not want anything of the sort. What I would like is some understanding of what I say is not totally unreasonable or out of the ballpark. Honestly, I am not playing games.

ozeco: Originally Posted by david.watts
ae911 and the rest of us do not agree that your hypothesis is the null.

Tough. you are wrong and I can prove it easily except you will not play the process through. Try this:
A) Did a plane strike the tower (whichever one out of WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11. If you answer "yes" we progress. If you answer "No" I could call you liar - I won't I will simply discontinue playing your evasive games.
B) Did the plane strike cause damage and start fires. "Yes" or "No" - same criteria as previous.
C) Did the fires continue unfought? "Yes" or "No" same criteria.
D) Did the "Top Block" start to fall. "Yes" or "No" etc
E) Did "global collapse' result. "Yes" or "No" etc

Every one of those items of fact has evidence in the public domain. All are true facts and the default hypothesis is therefore "impact damage and fires caused collapse.

My answers:

A) yes. Both towers.
B) yes. damage and fires.
C) yes
D) yes
E) yes

So far so good? We are in agreement, eh?

Now please consider whatever I come up with which I promise you I have come up with before and you have had no idea...that I ever came up with it.. not that anything I come up with matters.. at least to you. But it does to me. Am I not clear and fuzzy?

What if? (I think this is where I am going. Bear with me.) I mean ... what if it was not arab hijackers that flew the airplanes into the buildings? What if it were proven they were remote-controlled drones? And you agreed they were remote-controlled drones. It was drones that crashed into the towers causing damage and fires. So yes, there was damage and fires. But it was not just because of airplanes crashing into the towers, it was because of a purposefully controlled act, not by arabs, but insiders, of purposely crashing airplanes in to the towers?

Would you reconsider? If not, you would continue to insist the 3 WTC's were not controlled demos. But, even so, would not 9/11 still have been an inside job?

 

[ozeco41]

...My answers:

A) yes. Both towers.
B) yes. damage and fires.
C) yes
D) yes
E) yes

So far so good? We are in agreement, eh?

Yes - but at that point you deviated off the track.

My next point was this claim:

...All are true facts and the default hypothesis is therefore "impact damage and fires caused collapse.

Do you comprehend "hypothesis" AND do you agree that those facts lead to that hypothesis?

My next point was:

Now present the additional facts you (or AE911) rely on in favour of CD and be prepared to support them.

you have not presented a single fact. You change track from CD and present these speculations.

Now please consider whatever I come up with which I promise you I have come up with before and you have had no idea...that I ever came up with it.. not that anything I come up with matters.. at least to you. But it does to me. Am I not clear and fuzzy?

What if? (I think this is where I am going. Bear with me.) I mean ... what if it was not arab hijackers that flew the airplanes into the buildings? What if it were proven they were remote-controlled drones? And you agreed they were remote-controlled drones. It was drones that crashed into the towers causing damage and fires. So yes, there was damage and fires. But it was not just because of airplanes crashing into the towers, it was because of a purposefully controlled act, not by arabs, but insiders, of purposely crashing airplanes in to the towers?

Would you reconsider? If not, you would continue to insist the 3 WTC's were not controlled demos. But, even so, would not 9/11 still have been an inside job?

The question you ask in the middle of all that is:

Would you reconsider?

My answer remains - yes I will reconsider once you come up with some factual evidence which legitimately modifies the hypothesis I have put forward.

I don't give a damn about your speculations UNTIL you come up with reasoned and evidence supported argument.

As a starter try stating one fact that you claim supports CD in preference to "natural".

 

[Mark F]

ae911 and the rest of us do not agree that your hypothesis is the null.

I am curious, is this belief based on the technical merits or on ideology? I know for Gage they are based on ideology, so how about you? To date you have not presented a technical case for your belief the accepted hypothesis is invalid but merely stated your objection backed up with a handful of invalid anomalies you could not explain but we did.

... what if it was not arab hijackers that flew the airplanes into the buildings? What if it were proven they were remote-controlled drones?

We have very substantial evidence for Arab terrorist/hijackers. We have zero evidence for remote control airplanes (which could still theoretically have been done by terrorists anyway). So rather than address the case on its merits once again you go again answering the null hypothesis with speculation. Should we now start asking what is the probability of it being terrorist hijackers vs. remote control planes and further bog down the discussion in a rabbit hole to nowhere?

Will there some point in the not-so-distant future where you actually attempt to present a case that defeats the null hypothesis rather than engage in mere probabilities and what if's based on what you want to be true rather than what actually happened?