Demolition Monitor Disputes CD Theory

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Its just speculation ('theorizing', in the colloquial) of how it could be accomplished. I'm not insisting that is what happened.

I do assume it could be accomplished that way, though, and I base the assumption on knowledge that the technology was available to do something that way (the CIA's remote controlled drones, etc).

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

I do assume it could be accomplished that way, though, and I base the assumption on knowledge that the technology was available to do something that way (the CIA's remote controlled drones, etc).

Hi Lizzy,

I assume then, that you don't believe that the towers could have collapsed from plane impacts and subsequent fires?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by skanny

people should really start to look for more solid evidence that small isolated flash fires can totally destroy steel framed high rises.

Small isolated flash fires?

200 people jumped or fell to their deaths because they couldn't escape the heat inside/couldn't breath.



Well the perimeter columns were bent inwards just before collapse. What would cause this apart from maybe sagging floors?

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Hi Lizzy,

I assume then, that you don't believe that the towers could have collapsed from plane impacts and subsequent fires?

I highly doubt that is what happened. I don't have enough background in metallurgy, architectural engineering, physics, etc., etc., to say that it is impossible, with any confidence.

I assume, that if it was an inside job, that they wanted to make sure that the OS's explanation (that the impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse as they did), seems possible. If so, it wouldn't do, to have the planes nick the buildings elsewhere, hence the "beacon/remote control" speculation. I wonder if its possible that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7 (instead of the story that it was headed for DC), and something went wrong.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

I highly doubt that is what happened. I don't have enough background in metallurgy, architectural engineering, physics, etc., etc., to say that it is impossible, with any confidence.

I assume, that if it was an inside job, that they wanted to make sure that the OS's explanation (that the impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse as they did), is possible. If so, it wouldn't do, to have the planes nick the buildings elsewhere, hence the "beacon/remote control" speculation. I wonder if its possible that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7 (instead of the story that it was headed for DC), and something went wrong.

I've heard that theory before, and IMO its just a way of trying to bolster the WTC 7 CD theory without any supporting evidence.

From the evidence we have, planes were observed impacting both towers at high speed, full of fuel. Thus causing structural damage, perhaps not enough to cause a collapse, but the subsequent fires were indeed enough to collapse both towers. When the planes hit they severed several perimeter and core columns in each tower, the weight they used to support obviously got redistributed accordingly, which is fine as the towers had a factor of safety of 3-5. Problem is when the remaining columns are weakened by fire they cannot carry on supporting the structure.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by wispy

I haven't looked as the video as I'm at work but I'm going to guess that if I do it won't disprove Blanchard's article.

Well, just looked at the video, and no it doesn't go against anything Blanchard's written.

I agree that Blanchard's explanation of the collapse on the video would have been better served with 'working models' or a 'simulation' rather than lego.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I've heard that theory before, and IMO its just a way of trying to bolster the WTC 7 CD theory without any supporting evidence.

Hrm, well it seems like well grounded speculation, to me. Intuitively, everything screams "CD" when watching WTC 7 fall (the Twin Tower's collapse sequences remarkably resembles CDs, as well). WTC 7 collapses very neat and tidy, and rapidly: within seconds of a free fall time-frame. From the POV of somebody who is highly skeptical toward the OS, it seems a plane hitting WTC 7 might make the OS of why it collapsed in such a manner, more believable to some (probably not to me, but that is besides the point).

I'm somebody who doubts the OS (obviously), and suspects it was grand spectacle created to justify the major wars that followed, and motivate a very large, diverse population into not only supporting the wars, but donating flesh and blood to fight the wars. From that reference point, a plane not hitting WTC 7 seems "out-of-place" (for lack of a better term/phrase) when compared to what happened with the other sky scrapers that day, and, a plane crashing elsewhere without damaging anything (aside from the ground) also seems "out-of-place". Click click.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

From the evidence we have, planes were observed impacting both towers at high speed, full of fuel. Thus causing structural damage, perhaps not enough to cause a collapse, but the subsequent fires were indeed enough to collapse both towers. When the planes hit they severed several perimeter and core columns in each tower, the weight they used to support obviously got redistributed accordingly, which is fine as the towers had a factor of safety of 3-5. Problem is when the remaining columns are weakened by fire they cannot carry on supporting the structure.

"I've heard that theory before"

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Hrm, well it seems like well grounded speculation, to me. Intuitively, everything screams "CD" when watching WTC 7 fall (the Twin Tower's collapse sequences remarkably resembles CDs, as well). WTC 7 collapses very neat and tidy, and rapidly: within seconds of a free fall time-frame. From the POV of somebody who is highly skeptical toward the OS, it seems a plane hitting WTC 7 might make the OS of why it collapsed in such a manner, more believable to some (probably not to me, but that is besides the point).

I'm somebody who doubts the OS (obviously), and suspects it was grand spectacle created to justify the major wars that followed, and motivate a very large, diverse population into not only supporting the wars, but donating flesh and blood to fight the wars. From that reference point, a plane not hitting WTC 7 seems "out-of-place" (for lack of a better term/phrase) when compared to what happened with the other sky scrapers that day, and, a plane crashing elsewhere without damaging anything (aside from the ground) seems "out-of-place". Click click.





"I've heard that theory before"

There seems to be no stopping people bringing the 'wars that followed' into the convo, why? I think you don't trust the 'OS' because you don't trust the government. There are as I've said many times plenty of individuals and institutions who also have similar theories to the OS, that make sense of the evidence.

I don't agree with the 'wars that followed' by the way. This doesn't stop me acknowledging that the governments 'OS' makes more sense than any CD, DEW theory that's doing the rounds.

Also, if you have not got the expertise on physics etc, what makes you so sure the OS's explanation of the WTC collapse is so unlikely?

[lizzyking]

Who benefits?

Carefully read the Carter Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

At the above link, you'll notice the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote a book that was titled, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives."

Could the Twin towers, have been sorta like a "double rook" sacrifice, to those with worldviews, like Ziggy's?


Its just coincidental, I'm sure (seriously), but I did a chess search on double rook sacrifices once, and found a game online that utilized it. The author deleted the game entry (and sequence), but his comment/questions regarding the game, remained after the deletion.

Here's a very nice game I played online a while ago with a double rook sacrifice. It all looks nice, but the most important question is: is it justified? What do you think?

http://web.archive.org/web/200711180...rook-sacrifice

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Who benefits?

Carefully read the Carter Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

At the above link, you'll notice the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote a book that was titled, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives."

Could the Twin towers, have been sorta like a "double rook" sacrifice, to those with worldview's, like Ziggy?


Its just coincidental, I'm sure (seriously), but I did a chess search on double rook sacrifices once, and found a game online that utilized it. The author deleted the game entry (and sequence), but his comment/questions regarding the game, remained after the deletion.

I don't feel you addressed my post.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

There seems to be no stopping people bringing the 'wars that followed' into the convo, why? I think you don't trust the 'OS' because you don't trust the government.

Duh! I don't think any gov't - let alone stateless terrorist org- could have pulled something like that off against the defenses of the USA. That is one of the primary reasons why I doubt the OS. not because I don't trust the gov't. As far as not trusting "the gov't", that is a rather broad generalization, considering the size of the gov't, and all it entails. If I consider my family, including extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins), there are some who I trust, and some who I don't trust.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I don't agree with the 'wars that followed' by the way. This doesn't stop me acknowledging that the governments 'OS' makes more sense than any CD, DEW theory that's doing the rounds.

You left out "alien UFO assistance to reptilian overlords", in the list of theories "doing the rounds"

But yeah. these things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or inclusive, for sure. Hell, I suppose its possible for somebody to not believe the OS, but agree with the wars that followed! They might be tight-lipped though, regarding their disbelief of the OS.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Also, if you have not got the expertise on physics etc, what makes you so sure the OS's explanation of the WTC collapse is so unlikely?

I would have to write a many paged essay to get into all of that. Or maybe a book, and although it might help explain why I have such a POV, it wouldn't change anybody's minds, but it might make for interesting reading, if it hadn't been done a thousand times over by others.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Duh! I don't think any gov't - let alone stateless terrorist org- could have pulled something like that off against the defenses of the USA. That is one of the primary reasons why I doubt the OS. not because I don't trust the gov't. As far as not trusting "the gov't", that is a rather broad generalization, considering the size of the gov't, and all it entails. If I consider my family, including extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins), there are some who I trust, and some who I don't trust.

Well the airport security of 2001 really wasn't all that stringent, and this was the key part of the terrorists plan, to get through security and on to the planes.

Yes there's many different departments within the gvnmnt and I'm glad you acknowledge this. So what makes you think that NIST are wrong, and in your opinion are they more than just incorrect, perhaps complicit in a coverup?

Originally Posted by lizzyking

You left out "alien UFO assistance to reptilian overlords", in the list of theories "doing the rounds"

Oh yes and those, and many others.

Originally Posted by lizzyking

But yeah. these things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or inclusive, for sure. Hell, I suppose its possible for somebody to not believe the OS, but agree with the wars that followed! They might be tight-lipped though, regarding their disbelief of the OS.


I would have to write a many paged essay to get into all of that. Or maybe a book, and although it might help explain why I have such a POV, it wouldn't change anybody's minds, but it might make for interesting reading, if it hadn't been done a thousand times over by others.

An essay really? All I'm asking is, given your basic level of understanding of physics and engineering, how are you so sure that NIST and many others who share a similar theory have it wrong?

I also have a basic understanding of physics, but using logic and common sense, can see that for the most part the 'OS' does make sense, especially in comparison to most alternative theories.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by wispy

Well, just looked at the video, and no it doesn't go against anything Blanchard's written.

I agree that Blanchard's explanation of the collapse on the video would have been better served with 'working models' or a 'simulation' rather than lego.

I didn't mention the lego.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Well the airport security of 2001 really wasn't all that stringent, and this was the key part of the terrorists plan, to get through security and on to the planes.

Yes there's many different departments within the gvnmnt and I'm glad you acknowledge this. So what makes you think that NIST are wrong, and in your opinion are they more than just incorrect, perhaps complicit in a coverup?



Oh yes and those, and many others.



An essay really? All I'm asking is, given your basic level of understanding of physics and engineering, how are you so sure that NIST and many others who share a similar theory have it wrong?

I also have a basic understanding of physics, but using logic and common sense, can see that for the most part the 'OS' does make sense, especially in comparison to most alternative theories.

I'll just say this. The NIST, whether complicit or not, were charged with the task of explaining why the towers collapsed because of a sequence of events related to the impact of the planes. That was what they were tasked to do. Whether or not they might have been so inclined, they didn't have wiggle room to say, for example, "hrm, I don't think this could have happened, without the assistance of cutting charges or explosives".

The charge to the investigation team comprised four major parts.

• “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
• Determine why the injuries and fatalities were high or low depending on location including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response.
• Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
• Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.”

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ovic-0711.html

I read that the scant material evidence gathered, wasn't even gathered onsite by the investigators! They got it from picking through parts at a recycling center, after it had been removed from "ground zero".

During the recovery effort after September 11, and before NIST began its collapse investigation, volunteers from FEMA, ASCE, NIST, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) worked at the four steel recycling facilities to identify and collect steel members important to the investigation. They focused on identifying pieces that the aircraft struck or were obviously burned, as well as pieces from the fire and impact zone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology arranged to have these pieces shipped to its facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation team members cataloged the items and attempted to identify their original locations in the towers, using their dimensions and markings.

In all, NIST cataloged 236 structural steel elements:

• Ninety exterior column panels, of which 42 were unambiguously identified. Of those identified, 26 came from the fire and impact floors, and four of these had been struck by the airplane that hit WTC 1.
• Fifty-five core columns, of which 12 were unambiguously identified. Four of the identified columns came from the fire and impact zones.
• Twenty-three pieces of floor truss. Unfortunately, these elements had no identifying marks, so their original location in the towers is unknown.
• Twenty-five pieces of the channel that supported the floor trusses at the core; all are of unknown location.
• Forty-three miscellaneous pieces including bolts, pieces of aluminum facade, and elements from WTC 5.

Although many of the individual recovered elements are rather large, the collection represents less than 0.5 % of the more than 200,000 tons of steel used in the buildings.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ovic-0711.html

They did not follow established, codified procedural standards involving a fire investigation. Yet OS believers are satisfied with the NIST's final report.

They largely relied on hypotheticals and computer models, just as predicted, in an incensed editorial published in the "Fire Engineering" Journal (see excerpt below).

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

BY BILL MANNING
01/01/2002


Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.


For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.


Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.


Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.


Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?


No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.


Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.



As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...stigation.html

[wispy]

Originally Posted by bryan

I didn't mention the lego.

You didn't. But that that's what I inferred from you posting a clip which included 'the lego explanation'.

[wispy]

I'll just say this. The NIST, whether complicit or not, were charged with the task of explaining why the towers collapsed because of a sequence of events related to the impact of the planes. That was what they were tasked to do. Whether or not they might have been so inclined, they didn't have wiggle room to say, for example, "hrm, I don't think this could have happened, without the assistance of cutting charges or explosives".

I can't remember the report for WTCs 1 & 2 but they certainly modelled the blast and sound profiles for explosives for WTC7.

And as there was no evidence of explosives used at the collapses, why would they spend extensive time investigating it anyway?

I read that the scant material evidence gathered, wasn't even gathered onsite by the investigators! They got it from picking through parts at a recycling center, after it had been removed from "ground zero".

The 911 event is not the same as investigating the cause of a fire in a single building.

Wasn't a big part of the problem that they had a huge area of NYC which had debris field, some of it multi storeys high with fires still going on in the rubble and with the possibilty of survivors still trapped, however slim. So what do you do? Let forensics pick their way thro it an slow the search, clearance and fire fighting teams until they are ready. As it happens, from what I understand there were investigators at the rubble pile itself whilst it was being cleared. I'm blowed if I can find the source now before having to go to work.

They did not follow established, codified procedural standards involving a fire investigation. Yet OS believers are satisfied with the NIST's final report.

They largely relied on hypotheticals and computer models, just as predicted, in an incensed editorial published in the "Fire Engineering" Journal (see excerpt below).

Yes but:

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by wispy

And as there was no evidence of explosives used at the collapses, why would they spend extensive time investigating it anyway?

Exactly.

And, there wasn't much of anything left materially to provide evidence of anything, really, which was the point I was making. It was all carted away. The TMS article wasn't very comforting, when it reveals how they salvaged the scant metal bits they worked with, from the recycling center later. Apparently, very little of what the NIST cataloged in the way of exterior column panels and core columns were "unambiguously identified" (less then 50% and 25%, respectively), and the pieces of floor truss, and pieces of channel that supported the floor truss? "Their original location in the towers is unknown", they don't even seem to know which building the pieces came from! Yet the NIST report is the gospel for some people.

Originally Posted by wispy

Wasn't a big part of the problem that they had a huge area of NYC which had debris field, some of it multi storeys high with fires still going on in the rubble and with the possibilty of survivors still trapped, however slim. So what do you do?

Seems like material removed from the site could at least be tagged/labeled to facilitate cataloguing somehow, instead of dumping at the recycle center willy nilly, where investigators went to rummage for a few bits before it was loaded on a boat and sold to China

Originally Posted by wispy

Yes but:

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

Yes but what? 911myths is the holy grail?

From that^ link:

This article was scathing about the investigation, it’s true, but you might want to bear in mind when it was written. The context of the above quote might suggest it was after the 9/11 Commission Report, but in reality it appeared in January 2002

I'm not sure why you gave me that link? I didn't even quote the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” part of Manning's editorial, which is what the "911myths" site seems to take issue with. The editorial part I found interesting, was his complaining about the mishandling, and, destruction of evidence, and when considering the magnitude of what happened? The way the 'investigation' proceeded, without following standard investigative protocols regarding gathering and retention of material evidence, was quite unprecedented (and that feels like an understatement), and I agree with him.

Also, I bolded the date, I wasn't trying to obscure anything, with out-of-context quotes or otherwise. I thought the date was important, as he was trying to reverse a process that was underway, and what he predicted (in spite of welcoming an NIST investigation in a later editorial), is pretty much what it all boils down to, computer generated hypotheticals. The sum of the material samples they had to work with was, uhm, 'evidentially' scant, especially considering the scale of the event. The crime scene of the fucking crime of the millennium.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by wispy

You didn't. But that that's what I inferred from you posting a clip which included 'the lego explanation'.

Translation: I accept that Brent Blanchard's statement is a logical contradiction but I don't want to admit it so I tried to change the subject to lego.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by bryan

Translation: I accept that Brent Blanchard's statement is a logical contradiction but I don't want to admit it so I tried to change the subject to lego.

That's funny. I thought I meant what I said.

I don't seem to recollect a contradiction. Care to enlighten me.

[wispy]

Exactly.

Yes exactly. It's the truthers coming out with the CD argument when there's no evidence for it so why spend resources looking for it? In anycase, with the numbers of first responders and salvage guys and FDNY and contractors crawling over ground zero who know a thing or two about fires, collapses, demolitions and some of them about explosives, I would have thought they would have raised it as an issue of they saw any evidence of explosives.

And, there wasn't much of anything left materially to provide evidence of anything, really, which was the point I was making. It was all carted away. The TMS article wasn't very comforting, when it reveals how they salvaged the scant metal bits they worked with, from the recycling center later. Apparently, very little of what the NIST cataloged in the way of exterior column panels and core columns were "unambiguously identified" (less then 50% and 25%, respectively), and the pieces of floor truss, and pieces of channel that supported the floor truss? "Their original location in the towers is unknown", they don't even seem to know which building the pieces came from! Yet the NIST report is the gospel for some people.




Seems like material removed from the site could at least be tagged/labeled to facilitate cataloguing somehow, instead of dumping at the recycle center willy nilly, where investigators went to rummage for a few bits before it was loaded on a boat and sold to China

It seems there was enough for them to conclude it wasn't CD. The Loizeaus and Blanchard who know a thing or two about CD didn't think it was CD.

Yes but what? 911myths is the holy grail?

No it isn't but it gives an alternative view point.

I'm not sure why you gave me that link? I didn't even quote the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” part of Manning's editorial, which is what the "911myths" site seems to take issue with. The editorial part I found interesting, was his complaining about the mishandling, and, destruction of evidence, and when considering the magnitude of what happened? The way the 'investigation' proceeded, without following standard investigative protocols regarding gathering and retention of material evidence, was quite unprecedented (and that feels like an understatement), and I agree with him.

Yup, it would have been useful to forensically examine everything at the scene a la CSI even if only to shut the traps of CTers, but I don't think they had that luxury for other overwhelming reasons. And enough experts have concluded that it was fire induced collapse without having to look into CD.

Also, I bolded the date, I wasn't trying to obscure anything, with out-of-context quotes or otherwise. I thought the date was important, as he was trying to reverse a process that was underway, and what he predicted (in spite of welcoming an NIST investigation in a later editorial), is pretty much what it all boils down to, computer generated hypotheticals. The sum of the material samples they had to work with was, uhm, 'evidentially' scant, especially considering the scale of the event. The crime scene of the fucking crime of the millennium.

The n=mechaincs anddetails of the collapse were debated and are possibly still debated within academic and engineering circles but only from the point of view of detail and mechanism. As far as I can see they pretty much accept that it was planes and fire induced collapse and they've left the CTers and no planers to debate on fringe forums.