Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
June 14, 2005 10:57 PM   Subscribe

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job' Was it real or was it Memorex? Will we ever know? Tin-Foil hat theories or good, hard science?
posted by mk1gti (131 comments total)
 
An economist, an economist said that.
posted by drezdn at 11:08 PM on June 14, 2005


This video has some interesting points to make about such a supposition.


wtf is that lump on those planes? What is that flash before the fuselage hits? Why are the iron girders flying straight out when they collapse? Why is all the concrete pulverized into fine powder, as in an explosion? Why, why, and why indeed?
posted by stenseng at 11:11 PM on June 14, 2005


keep in mind, their other topics of dissussion include "Religious and Spirtual Phenomena; Unpopular Science; Suppressed Health Alternatives; Legal/ Social Injustice and Environmental Protection and Alien Presence on Earth and UFO Phenomena.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 11:12 PM on June 14, 2005


I would like to incorporate by reference all my comments in the other WTC collapse threads. Thank you.

Just so we have a counter-point, here's the oft-discussed Popular Mechanics story as well. It's a starting point, not an end point, but it has some decent explanations in it.

I'm still not sure why an economist would know better than anybody else -- ie, why their opinion matters.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:19 PM on June 14, 2005


no matter how much evidence was found, nobody would ever believe it. the lie would be too big.
posted by muppetboy at 11:21 PM on June 14, 2005


Man.... FEMA, Faked Terrorist Attack, All-Over Conspiracy... if it happened to the Statue of Liberty I'd start thinking Deus Ex was prophetic. Where are them metal-voiced Men in Black...
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:23 PM on June 14, 2005


Interestingly, someone on Metachat described this as the "JFK of our generation" and I can't say s/he's wrong when there is so much obfuscation from the top, specifically when the Bush administration withholds evidence from the 9/11 Commission and general public. Bush and his people clearly know something they don't want publicized, and have signed laws to ensure secrecy.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:28 PM on June 14, 2005


Next up. world reknown linguist opines about foreign policy!

Also, I would like to see people give up the tin-foil hats and adopt a Saran Wrap banadana look.
posted by Dagobert at 11:30 PM on June 14, 2005


wtf is that lump on those planes?

The landing gear hatch. Very good pictures of Boeing landing gear.

Why is all the concrete pulverized into fine powder, as in an explosion

Take a hammer and hit a piece of old concrete. It shatters, often into dust. Now take a pile of concrete and drop 30 stories of building onto it. Suprise, it shatters too. What shape would you have expected concrete to be in after being in a completely collapsed building? Think about what the "collapsing buildings don't pulverize concrete" explanation entails: it proves way too much. If collapsing buildings didn't pulverize concrete then your explanation requries that every single piece of concrete in the building be rigged for all of it to be pulverized, which seems unlikely given the number of tenants who might notice a demolition crew going through the building floor-by-floor.

What is that flash before the fuselage hits?

Glass shattering as the nose enters the building, paint exploding off the nosecone, whatever was inside the building coming out? If the whole building was rigged to explode why would anybody bother shooting a missle at it? Also see .
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:36 PM on June 14, 2005


Or the Saran Wrap boxers, so everyone could clearly see they're nuts.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:36 PM on June 14, 2005


TwelveTwo, I love you.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:37 PM on June 14, 2005


no matter how much evidence was found, nobody would ever believe it

Are you talking about 9/11 deniers, or the rest of the world? I'm not really sure just by reading it.

Or the Saran Wrap boxers, so everyone could clearly see they're nuts.

weapons-grade for the win.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:38 PM on June 14, 2005


Indeed, as we all know, the Labor Department specializes in evaluating controlled demolitions. Especially the economists.

The collapses began in the areas where the planes hit. Which means that either:

(1) Controlled demolitions expert had been there before to do the necessary pre-weakening of the structure, cutting and holing beams and columns, placing shaped-charges to cut the final beams and columns and other charges to knock the but pieces down, stringing det cord, and so on for several weeks and nobody bothered to ask them "Hey, why are you cutting that column with a sawzall?" or "What the fuck are you doing with that dynamite, dude?" And then the planes hit at exactly the spot, from exactly the right direction, with exactly the right angle in the wings to make it look like it was the terrorist strike that did it. Both times, probably by remote control.

(2) The conspirators had hidden a secret gang of demolitions experts in the building somewhere, along with their tools, explosives, and, to be sure, a power source. After a plane hit, the crew would rush to the area, do several weeks of pre-weakening in the space of an hour or two, depending on the tower, string explosives charges and detcord in the middle of burning kerosene, escape to a safe distance without being seen to do so, and then set off the charges.

Or, maybe, the damn planes hit the towers with far more force than anything they'd been designed to withstand, the stricken floors were further weakened by fire, and the towers pancaked down.

wtf is that lump on those planes?

There plainly isn't one. It's obvious that that's just the sun or other light glinting off of the aircraft, including where the wing root flares out.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:43 PM on June 14, 2005


the Labor Department specializes in evaluating controlled demolitions. Especially the economists.

They've been witnessing the controlled demolition of the US economy for the past five years.
That's all been blamed on 9/11, too...
posted by Balisong at 11:48 PM on June 14, 2005


We've been here before with this MeFi discussion of the Popular Mechanics refutation of the conspiracy theories.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:54 PM on June 14, 2005


There's no harm in allowing people to sample and talk about extreme possibilities, that's how myths and stories develop. It's quite imaginative, and one has to be talented to do it credibly.
posted by gsb at 12:03 AM on June 15, 2005


Doesn't Popular Mechanics publish stuff about flying cars every couple months?
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:11 AM on June 15, 2005


I heard from my friend in the government agency that the reason why Michael Jackson was found not-guilty on all charges was because he knew all about FEMA's conspiracy against America and the WTC conspiracy and they didn't want to risk him telling it to the public with his last words if he were given the death sentence for his crimes! TURE FACTS!!
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:14 AM on June 15, 2005


Holy Cow! I didn't know Child Molestation was a death sentence offense. Thanks TwleveTwo!!
posted by gsb at 12:38 AM on June 15, 2005


No problem! I'm just spreading the truth!! Never Forget!
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:41 AM on June 15, 2005


thedevildancedlightly & ROU_Xenophobe beat me to it.

"Hey, why are you cutting that column with a sawzall?"
"Fnord."
"Oh, uh, ok." Dazedly wanders off.

I'd add the buildings collapse straight down 'cause of physics. They're engineered to take wind shifts, etc, etc. Not the weight of whole stories dropping on top of each other.

That aside, I'm afeared that the bad science theories get in the way of the otherwise in some cases plausible political conspiracy theories. ...some cases. ...theories.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:43 AM on June 15, 2005


someone from the Dole camp agrees
and as usual Jeff Wells has some questions
posted by hortense at 12:52 AM on June 15, 2005


A more interesting topic than Yet Another Rehash would be: why do otherwise reasonable appearing people fall for this sort of garbage? Post traumatic stress?
posted by Justinian at 1:03 AM on June 15, 2005


Post election stress?
posted by Balisong at 1:05 AM on June 15, 2005


A conspiracy to start a war in Iraq because there's a steady supply of oil and long-term government contracts to be had...now that's a conspiracy theory I can get behind because it involves money. This, on the other hand, is definitely tinfoil-yarmulke fodder.
posted by alumshubby at 3:11 AM on June 15, 2005


Well, here's one attempt to understand conspiracy theories - "conspiracy as naive deconstructive history". It's a conspiracy friendly account.
posted by TimothyMason at 3:55 AM on June 15, 2005


I suspect that what Bush and others are afraid people might find out is the degree to which they may have had some foreknowledge something was going to happen, not necessarily in the since that they hoped/planned for it, but in the since they had some warnings and dismissed the possibility thus they would appear {more /subjective} incompetent. So, some sort of cover up is put in place to obscure facts which just fuels out of proportion speculation as to what they are obscuring. Kinda like the beeping out of dirty words, you can fill in much worse words then they beeped out.
posted by edgeways at 4:01 AM on June 15, 2005


damn wrong sinces, vsrry
posted by edgeways at 4:02 AM on June 15, 2005


Link doesn't seem to want to open right now. I guess I'll try back later.

But I thought this was solved already. Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein flew the planes into the WTC because he hates freedom and democracy.
posted by birdherder at 4:47 AM on June 15, 2005


wtf is that lump on those planes?

It's not a lump, it's a strip of gray you see painted on all United 767's and 757's. It's there for maintainence purposes, and if you do a search for United and 767 on Airliners.net, you'll see lots of pictures of that.

Look, this administration used this as an excuse to push a policy they had decided on prior to the attack. Isn't that conspiracy enough?
posted by Mcable at 5:02 AM on June 15, 2005


Sigh.

It's not like this is hard. Hell, do the experiment yourself.

Needed: A safe place. Two steel bars, identical. A few pairs of long pliers. A good pair of gloves. And, of course, kerosene (Jet-A fuel is just a very clean version of kerosene.)

1) Put one bar on ground. Soak with kerosene, and ignite.

2) Keep adding fuel. Let this rod soak in the fire for an hour.

3) Now, grab the rod (with the pliers.) Bend the rod. Note the force requires.

4) Now, grab the other rod, which hasn't been in the fire, and bend it. Note the force required.

Compare. Now you know what killed the towers.

What killed WTC1 and WTC2 was simple. There was a great deal of building pushing down, and the steel columns held it up. When the planes hit, some of those columns were damaged, but the buildings had enough safety margin built in that it didn't matter.

But -- the planes were loaded with fuel. It burned, heating up the supporting columns. As they grew warmer, they weakened. Eventually, the load on a column dropped below the fractional mass of the towers above the impact site that it was made to support. That column failed. This mean the load was now shifted to the remaining unfailed columns. However, if X columns can barely support the load, then X-1 aren't going to do so well. This increases the load on all the other columns, most of which are weakend by the fire (and some were destroy or damaged by the impact.) Soon, another fialed. The load shifts to the remaining columns again. If X isn't good, X-2 is much worse. Thus, you get an accelerating collapse -- each failure increased the load on the remaining columns, which were already close to failure. After enough failures, the rest of them just can't even begin to resist the load, and the building above drops.

Now, do some math. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv2. When the top of the building fell through, the kinetic energy it had was staggering, and was several orders of magnitude above what was needed to force the columns below to fail. The whole mass falls another floor. Now, it's moving faster, and has more mass. If the floor above couldn't stop it, this one, dealing with more energy, certainly can't.

Thus, the towers die.

Further problem set. Find the KE of the airliners at impact. Now, find the total energy release potential of the fuel on board burning. Note how many orders of magnitude more energy is present in the burning fuel.

Finally -- this is just a transmuting rumor. The original was the WTC7 was imploded, to keep it from falling on something else. Of course, the same arguments apply -- nobody noticed the demolition guys removing all the walls around the columns and setting charges?
posted by eriko at 5:17 AM on June 15, 2005


Ya know the explosives that are used for controlled demo are highly regulated. You need a special permit to buy and use it, and its all documented. The amount of explosives needed to take down *2* buildings of that size are significant. Not to mention that when they demo an actual building, it take them month(s) to prep the building. Cutting into building stuts, knocking out walls... you cant just do that kinda thing in the inter-floor non occupied space, just watch any tv show about building demo.
posted by MrLint at 5:17 AM on June 15, 2005


why pollute mefi with this shit? any half-aware moron who read that article could see it's total bullshit. every "argument" is hollow, simplistic, ignorant. good, hard science? how can you even ask? jesus fuck!
posted by quonsar at 5:34 AM on June 15, 2005


Uh oh, you guys pissed off quonsar.

Oh, wait...

Metafilter: Jesus Fuck.
posted by jennaratrix at 5:48 AM on June 15, 2005


Oh, hell. Who doubts an economics prof from Texas A&M? Besides, this is old news; Cyclotouriste brought us this news long ago (scroll down to post #19), and...he's written a book!.

excuse me now, I'm off to relax on a grassy knoll.
posted by beelzbubba at 6:01 AM on June 15, 2005


The reason that so many people are interested (obsessed) with these issues is A) there are so many things that don't add up and B) the Gubmint folks acts like they have lots to hide.

Is much of what the conspiracy folks say baloney? You betcha.

Is ALL of it baloney? Not at all.

Is there something fishy about the Gubmint version of what happened? Ha ha ha ha.

Will we ever know what REALLY happened?

Nope.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:22 AM on June 15, 2005


Was this the economist who said the budget cut would pay for itself? Was this the economist who said the invasion of Iraq would pay for itself? Just the words "former Bush team member" and "chief economist" are enough to discredit this guy.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:37 AM on June 15, 2005


There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for these tin foil hat posts, where the thread is dead as soon as someone mentions Bigfoot or Elvis.
posted by LarryC at 6:46 AM on June 15, 2005


I'm still not sure why an economist would know better than anybody else -- ie, why their opinion matters.

so that they can claim they have a member of the 'Bush team' agreeing with their story, however nominally a part of the Bush team the person is.
posted by brucec at 7:04 AM on June 15, 2005


It was the UFOs that done it. Really. There is not the slightest trace of evidence of Bigfoot or Elvis.

Here's proof.
Pictures never lie.

Next week, former ex-White House Economist discovers secrets of the pyramids.

*withdraws to corner and commences gibbering*
posted by warbaby at 7:08 AM on June 15, 2005


Where is the forensic investigation, so common to U.S. tragedies before this particular event? We can piece a plane back together off the bottom of the ocean, but we practically hide WTC building remains. Sorry, but to merely accept the official line at face value is simply wrong.

And its not like a lie this big has never been attempted before. (its scary how third reichish neocon america is)

Oh, and the linguist criticism...really damning. nice work.
posted by garfield at 7:10 AM on June 15, 2005


lecture
posted by garfield at 7:11 AM on June 15, 2005


The implied logic of these theories seems to be ' they caused 9/11 to justify going to war with Iraq.'

Bush would gone into Iraq, probably in 2002 on the false WMD justification alone. The President controls foriegn policy and the Congress would not have denied funds. And they wouldn't need a 9/11 to convince Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller to go along with their plans.

If anything, 9/11 delayed the Bush Administration's plans to go to war with Iraq by a year, and force them to deal with Afganistan for a while.
posted by brucec at 7:11 AM on June 15, 2005


The only conspiracy is that there is no conspiracy. Most of this is harmless whatifing, which is ok, no more or less wasteful than playing video games or posting to son of 9622. However all the people who strap on their armor of righteousness and march out with the zionist reptilian trilateral commission dudes are trying to kill off a third of the population bogons are at best popinjays and at worst making the cause of secular humanism look awful and actually distracting people who might otherwise be applying themselves to fighting these bastards in a useful way.

I really do think the active conspiracy people (the ones who see a conspiracy in everything, literally everything) are pretty equally divided between the truly mentally ill and people who merely want the world to be more exciting, frightening and mysterious than it actually is, which is nuts. It's intellectual bungee jumping. Clearly, at least to me, the answer to "What are they hiding, why won't they release any information about 9-11, why why why?" is "They are covering up the biggest fuckup by a world power ever."* I'd tend to want to cover that up myself. In the end the sad fact is that money and power is the only conspiracy, self-guided, conscience free and always headed in the same direction.

Oh, except that the Vatican is a conspiracy of marxist nuns, that's an irrefutable fact.


*Rather clearly including foreknowledge and active participation by elements of governments and intelligence services around the world, but that is not "they wired the buildings for demo and the planes fired missiles and they were remote controlled and teh jewz0rs were warned and all that tripe that the conspiracy dudes spew, that's realpolitik.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:15 AM on June 15, 2005


No controlled demolition expert would be proud of the results of the tower collapse: debris went all over teh place.

People seem to have this idea that a tall building, falling down of some other accord, is going to tip over like a felled tree. That simply cannot happen, unless the building has been constructed to be so rigid that it consists almost entirely of support structure (i.e., no livable volume, which is the purported goal of erecting a building). Take any building, and try to tip it over -- it will collapse with nearly all of its materials landing in its own footprint area, with a surprisingly small but disaster-event-significant portion of that material sprawling over the surrounding area.

Classic sandbox proof: build a tall "skyscraper" out of building blocks or 35mm film canisters. inflict damage anywhere on it and watch how it collapses. Top, bottom, matters very little in the dynamics of the collapse. And most of the sprawl of debris is due to the blocks bouncing off one another, not due to the initial fall trajectory of the blocks themselves.

So the big benefit of controlled demolitions isn't getting a building to collapse on top of it's own base, which is realtively easy to do since that's whats most likely to happen anyway, it's really the engineering of that sprawl.
posted by yesster at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2005


Great link. Hey, did you know "'Tall Whites' Living Among Us in Nevada Under Military Cover"? Yeah, it seems "some stand more than 8 feet tall, run 40 mph and live 800 years. They speak like a dog barking or a bird chirping, write similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics and have learned English quite easily."

You really do learn something new every day. Thanks, Arctic Beacon!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:09 AM on June 15, 2005


If anyone is really interested in persuing these questions, I would highly recommend The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. I'm not inclined towards conspiracy-think as a rule, but this brief, well-written work is a good starting point for anyone serious about looking a little deeper at these events.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:19 AM on June 15, 2005


I have an email ring with a bunch of true neo-cons. I'm the only liberal. They talk about how great things are going in Iraq, and all the good we're doing. However, they do see that support is wanning, and have suggested that the only thing that is going to "save" the momentum of this war on terror is going to be another "9/11 type event".

Also, you might ask Ukraine's Yushchenko what he thinks about conspiracy theories.
posted by Balisong at 9:24 AM on June 15, 2005


Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

All the proof you need that this a bunch of damn fairy tale lies, he's a non-reality based Bushie!

why pollute mefi with this shit? any half-aware moron who read that article could see it's total bullshit. every "argument" is hollow, simplistic, ignorant. good, hard science? how can you even ask? jesus fuck!
posted by quonsar at 8:34 AM EST on June 15 [!]


Heh! I loves quonsar!
posted by nofundy at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2005


Balisong
Yushchenko is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, in real life conspiracies work like that, a half-assed poisoning that doesn't take and ends up with the dude in charge anyway.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:19 AM on June 15, 2005


By analogy with the popular "chickenhawks should all go overseas and get their asses shot off", I propose that conspiracy theorists obtain jetliners and repeatedly crash them into steel/glass or concrete walls in order that we may verify the truth of their beliefs.
posted by darukaru at 10:22 AM on June 15, 2005


and remember. When you dine at the house of the secret police: never, never eat the soup.
posted by brucec at 11:07 AM on June 15, 2005


That the buildings started collapsing where the planes struck is proof enough that pre-rigged demolition was not a factor.

And IMO the reason the WTC site was not properly forensic investigation is that any delay would have brought into bright light a few facts that would have made an Iraqi invasion a little more difficult... like that it was a Saudi attack on America, and that Iraq wasn't the least bit involved.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2005 [1 favorite]


And IMO the reason the WTC site was not properly forensic investigation is that any delay would have brought into bright light a few facts that would have made an Iraqi invasion a little more difficult... like that it was a Saudi attack on America, and that Iraq wasn't the least bit involved.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what forensic information would differentiate an attack controlled by Saudi Arabia from an attack controlled by Al-Queda? We already know the identities of the hijackers, so that wasn't at issue. Do Saudi plots burn differently than Al-Queda plots? Do Saudi-commanded terrorists leave different patterns of destruction than Al-Queda? What forensic information that wasn't known already would point the finger at Saudi Arabia?

I'm not saying that there is any sort of conspiracy, I'm just saying that there are other reasons why the site was cleaned instead of being "preserved". Not the least of which is that through November ash was drifting over all of Manhattan and everything south of Times Square smelled like burning rubble for months.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2005


What's amusing is how people proclaim the Bush Administration to be dishonest and incompetent, and when someone is no longer a member of that former lot, they all-of-a-sudden gain some sort of credibility. Nevermind the facts, I want to believe whatever people say that fits in with my world view. . .
posted by BrandonAbell at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2005


No, Bush is incompetent, the administration is dishonest.
Every action they have taken says they will do ANYTHING to hold on to and gain more power. Opinions, rules, traditions, laws, nothing is sacred enough not to be bent or trashed in order to achieve that end. They do most of this stuff out in the open, but at the same time they have a secrecy fetish. It makes people wonder the kinds of horrible things they must be doing in secret, when there is so many horrible things the do out in the open. The kinds of things that even other republicans couldn't stomach.

Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but somehow I don't think they have any allegiances beyond money and power.
Nothing concievable to any conspiracy theorist probably hasn't been floated across the war room table as a possible gain.
posted by Balisong at 11:47 AM on June 15, 2005


I'm with quonsar. jesus fuck.

already made a few comments about this on the metachat thread...
posted by mdn at 11:54 AM on June 15, 2005


The article lost any trace of credibility when it referred to how the towers were "allegedly hit by aircraft". That oughta send anyone's BS detector through the roof. Do they actually think the live videos were all fake?
posted by sidb at 12:10 PM on June 15, 2005


If what he says is true, he is probably dead by now.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:48 PM on June 15, 2005


WTC 7 was probably intentionally brought down.
posted by euphorb at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2005


I third the "Jesus Fuck!" It never ceases to amaze me how utterly stupid some fucktards are... I'd like to fly a 747 into this thread and cackle as it pancakes....
posted by Debaser626 at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2005


Either:

In the 7 hours between the initial impacts and the WTC 7 collapse, hundreds of pounds of high-speed explosives and miles of wiring are secretly (since there are no photographs, videos, or witnesses who have come forward) carried into and installed in the building. This process normally takes weeks. WTC 7 is structurally damaged and there are raging fires on several floors during the installation process.

Or:

The explosives are installed in the weeks leading up to 9/11. WTC 7 is fully occupied during this time. Not one tenant of the building has come forward to say that they witnessed the wiring of the building for demolition. The building burns for 7 hours without setting off a single one of these explosives or cutting any of the wires.
posted by event at 2:39 PM on June 15, 2005


Maybe I'm missing something, but what forensic information would differentiate an attack controlled by Saudi Arabia from an attack controlled by Al-Queda?

Not the forensic evidence so much as the continued media focus. The longer the media had a chance to explore what happened, seek answers, investigate weird shit, the more it would start to make public the Saudi connection, the conflicts between Shiite and Sunni, the antipathy of Hussein against the al-Saud family.

Anyone remember what silly-assed entertainment-industry media circus received big attention soon after 9/11? Was that when MJ's problems went bigtime?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:02 PM on June 15, 2005


Conspiracy theories are fun. I especially like the UFO one. Thanks, warbaby.

From that link: "Did you know that the City of New York is a corporation?"

Aaaaagh! Proof! It must have been the UFOs.
posted by effwerd at 5:49 PM on June 15, 2005


The burden to resolve your false dichotomy event is not on me or anyone else, instead the burden is on FEMA investigators to explain the cause of the collapse. Their official report seems to ask more questions than it answers. Let's see what they said:

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward suggesting an internal failure and implosion.
posted by euphorb at 6:30 PM on June 15, 2005


I believe it! Also, God is real.
posted by angry modem at 7:56 PM on June 15, 2005


NIST World Trade Center investigation: a number of interesting and detailed documents. The WTC 1 and 2 report will be released next week; the WTC 7 report is due in October.

By the way, here's a rare image of the damaged WTC 7.
posted by dhartung at 9:28 PM on June 15, 2005


"WTC 7 is structurally damaged and there are raging fires on several floors during the installation process."

Raging fires? What raging fires? Got any photos of those raging fires?
posted by GrooveJedi at 2:08 AM on June 16, 2005


So, the towers "pancaked?"

Mmmm. Pancakes. Anyone else like pancakes? I like to eat mine while wearing a tinfoil beanie and a saranwrap bikini. Just to be safe.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:48 AM on June 16, 2005


The burden to resolve your false dichotomy event

Really? False how? Either the explosives were installed before the impacts or after. Both possibilities are unlikely in the extreme, as I described.

is not on me or anyone else, instead the burden is on FEMA investigators to explain the cause of the collapse.

The true cause is, of course, ultimately unknowable. All that FEMA can do is give the most likely possibilities. That is exactly what they did in their report. If you are going to claim that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, the burden of proof is on you to give any evidence whatsoever. Some guy saying the word "pull" on the radio is not that evidence.

Their official report seems to ask more questions than it answers. Let's see what they said:

You have the entire FEMA report to cherry pick something to support your cause and the best you can come up with is a quote that is completely neutral? Good job.
posted by event at 7:22 AM on June 16, 2005


Raging fires? What raging fires? Got any photos of those raging fires?

Fires in WTC 7--which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed--were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle about half an hour before the collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day.


But fine, let's assume there were no fires inside WTC 7 in the 7 hours before it collapsed (despite plenty of photographic and eyewitness evidence to the contrary). You still have to explain to me how the mysterious "they" managed to undertake a process that normally takes weeks right smack in the middle of the chaos of ground zero. With no witnesses. In a building that looked like this.

This is New York City. They couldn't obtain the blueprints for that building in 7 hours, let alone rig it for demolition.
posted by event at 7:41 AM on June 16, 2005


lei inciti il bambino jeebus a gridare
posted by beelzbubba at 10:28 AM on June 16, 2005


"The true cause is, of course, ultimately unknowable. All that FEMA can do is give the most likely possibilities. That is exactly what they did in their report. If you are going to claim that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, the burden of proof is on you to give any evidence whatsoever. Some guy saying the word "pull" on the radio is not that evidence."

Watch the video of the collapse of WTC 7. The video is the only evidence you need. Couple that with the Silverstein comment and I would say that is plenty of evidence, definitely more evidence to prove controlled demolition than any other theory (which lacks even this much evidence).

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time (as in controlled demolition).

"You still have to explain to me how the mysterious "they" managed to undertake a process that normally takes weeks right smack in the middle of the chaos of ground zero. With no witnesses."

You're proving our point - the explosives were planted in the building prior to 9/11. This can be done pretty easily if you think about it, just mask a team as a cleaning crew or elevator repair crew or whatever you like. Perhaps someone should start with investigating Israeli owned Zim Shipping Company which had offices in one tower. This company broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center just 2 weeks before the Sept. 11 disaster. In breaking the lease early, the company reportedly lost something like 50k. Just an idea...

Another idea would be to investigate the change of ownership and insurance policy purchased on the WTC towers just prior to Sept. 11th. This insurance policy covered acts of terrorism.

The photos show fires on several floors. Whether or not they are "raging" is, I guess dependent on your definition of raging.

If you do some research, you'll find that the FEMA report is a total joke. Almost all of its claims can easily be debunked by common sense and logic.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:22 AM on June 16, 2005


Oh, you mean the FEMA report is a total joke because of this?

HAHAHAHAHA!
posted by event at 11:29 AM on June 16, 2005


Or, maybe, the damn planes hit the towers with far more force than anything they'd been designed to withstand, the stricken floors were further weakened by fire, and the towers pancaked down.

I'm tired of hearing this word pancake with no evidence to support it.

Grab a stopwatch. Watch the video of the collapse of either the North or South tower. Start your stopwatch and time how long it takes for the entire thing to come down.

Then, use high school physics and marvel at the freefall of both towers. This pancake nonsense is a myth. If the towers did pancake, they would have taken much longer to collapse than they did. Watch the videos and you will note that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds.

Now, dust off your old high school physics book and find the equation for freefall. Plug in the height of the towers and you will see exactly how long it would take for them to freefall (due to gravity) - just about 10 seconds.

Therefore, the only plausible conclusion is that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition (the bottom was taken out first and gravity does the rest)

Pancaking theory is a joke.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:36 AM on June 16, 2005


No, the FEMA report is a joke because it provides no evidence.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2005


Interesting link nonetheless. I haven't read this report yet, looks somewhat lengthy and will take some time to go through. The fact that you posted about 7 minutes after my post makes me believe that you didn't even bother to read it. Who knows, maybe it's bantha fodder but don't we owe it to ourselves to at least read these types of reports? Or should we just go with whatever FEMA, NOVA and the 9/11 Commission tell us.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2005


Listen up event, you're going on and on about explosives and I really don't care. Buildings don't just collapse on their own and fires don't burn without fuel or for that matter, an ignition source.

I'm just curious why the WTC imploded and why it seems to be so difficult to get a straight answer.
posted by euphorb at 1:13 PM on June 16, 2005


I'll give you a straight answer:

The towers imploded due to controlled demolition.

:)
posted by GrooveJedi at 1:49 PM on June 16, 2005


Now, dust off your old high school physics book and find the equation for freefall. Plug in the height of the towers and you will see exactly how long it would take for them to freefall (due to gravity) - just about 10 seconds.

How is that inconsistant with a pancake theory? The supports at about floor 70 give out, resulting in basically a 30-story building hitting floor 69 with the amount of force generated by a 30-story building falling 10 meters (hint: a lot). The supports for the 69th floor are designed to handle static weight, not the impact of a 30-story building so they collapse more or less instantaneously. Now we have a 31 story building falling onto the 68th floor supports. Those too collapse more or less instantaneously since they just weren't designed for that.

Here's an example you can do at home - rest a cinderblock on a Coke can. It'll stay up, no problem. Now drop that cinderblock on the coke can from some height. The can crushes without even slowing the cinderblock down. The supports for the lower floors are not unlike the Coke can - they're designed for static loads and can't even slow down a moving impact.

Therefore, the only plausible conclusion is that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition (the bottom was taken out first and gravity does the rest)

The problem is that your theory still requires pancaking. For the entire tower to fall in 10 seconds if the BOTTOM floor were taken out would still require floor 2 to collapse under the weight of floors 3-100, floor 3 to collapse under the weight of floors 4-100, etc. If only the interior of the first floor were taken out then the upper floors would still have to pancake for it to fall in the time you allotted. It doesn't answer the question. For demolition to explain a "faster" fall then you'd have to wire every floor of the building.

Buildings don't just collapse on their own and fires don't burn without fuel or for that matter, an ignition source.

Jet-A isn't a fuel? That's news to me. Carpets, desks, papers, files, wiring, clothing, books, and chairs aren't fuel? That's news to people who have ever had house fires. Ignition source? A plane slamming into a building is a good one if you ask me. If the JET ENGINES crashing into a building filled with Jet-A that's leaking from the fuel tanks don't light a fire then I don't know what will... except for jet fuel spilling on broken wires, maybe. If you're talking about WTC 7 the same arguments apply - hit a building with something large and heavy enough and you'll snap enough electrical wires to start a fire.

I'm just curious why the WTC imploded

Remember those fires above? You know, Jet-A burning in essentially a wind tunnel created by the holes in the builidng? Remember all the smoke? Steel doesn't like fire. Steel gets hot in fires. Steel weakens when it get sufficiently hot. Once one beam collapsed the rest followed almost immediately as they had to carry more of the weight of the building. It's called a catostropic failure because the failure accelerates in a self-reinforcing cycle.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:49 PM on June 16, 2005


Perhaps someone should start with investigating Israeli owned Zim Shipping Company which had offices in one tower. This company broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center just 2 weeks before the Sept. 11 disaster. In breaking the lease early, the company reportedly lost something like 50k. ...
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:22 AM PST on June 16 [!]


Just for the record, GrooveJedi has a long history of unspported anti-Israel comments on MeFi. (Note that I'm very careful not to say anti-semetic). Please take them in mind when you consider his motivations and biases. Some highlights:
The fact is, you will never EVER get a balanced viewpoint in the American media because it is fully under Zionist control.

Some of the comments on this thread are proof that most Americans are willing to swallow all the spoonfed bullshit that is shoveled out by corporate (Zionist controlled) media without seeking out information by themselves and forming their own opinions.

Our Congress and leaders all bow down to Israel. Why? For 2 main reasons: 1) The Israeli government has dirt on all of them which they use as blackmail...when President Clinton told Monica Lewinsky on the phone that he couldn't talk because there was a foreign government listening in on their conversation, who do you think that foreign government was?

The government in question [funding terrorists in the US] is probably Israel.

I can see it now...Israel launches nukes at the United States, killing millions of innocent Americans and then claiming it was an "accident".
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:03 PM on June 16, 2005


GrooveJedi:

the bottom was taken out first and gravity does the rest

And that's different from pancaking? The explosion at the bottom takes out the whole building at once, so the top can fall free? Hint: Demolition from the bottom results in pancaking. It just starts at the bottom instead of at the upper third.

Also, the crushing of the floors in your scenario would take place at the bottom. That means, the building as a whole moves straight down. All floors that are still intact move as a whole until they hit the ground, where the "pancake". The floors of the towers were static, and the crushing took place from the top down. I would have thought you have watched those videos closely.

Wow! Just wow. It's amazing what obvious facts people are able to blot out when they smell conspiracy.
posted by uncle harold at 3:07 PM on June 16, 2005


Remember those fires above? You know, Jet-A burning in essentially a wind tunnel created by the holes in the building?

I should have made myself clearer. I was discussing WTC building 7.
posted by euphorb at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2005


thedevildancedlightly,

The pancake theory, as I understand it explains the collapse as the top floors "pancaking" down, floor by floor. In other words, as the top comes down, each floor underneath it absorbs the weight of the floors above and then collapses down to the next floor, continuing all the way down in this fashion. The problem with this theory is that the resistance of each floor would result in the entire process taking longer than it took. The pancaking would result in additional friction or resistance and slow down the process, but this is not what happened. What happened, as is clearly shown in the videos, is that the entire building came straight down in a freefall manner, implying no (or very little) friction or resistance due to pancaking. If my understanding of the pancaking theory is incorrect, please explain.

Your example of the Coke Can makes sense, however I do not believe that it is relevant in this case, it does not explain freefall effectively. Perhaps if we could duplicate your experiment with a giant coke can, the size of perhaps a tall building, it could better illustrate the effects of freefall. A 12oz. can of soda is too small to calculate the amount of time it would take for the entire can to crush and does not effectively illustrate the differences between a structure failing at the top versus at the bottom. Perhaps I am misunderstanding part of your explanation.

"The problem is that your theory still requires pancaking. For the entire tower to fall in 10 seconds if the BOTTOM floor were taken out would still require floor 2 to collapse under the weight of floors 3-100, floor 3 to collapse under the weight of floors 4-100, etc. If only the interior of the first floor were taken out then the upper floors would still have to pancake for it to fall in the time you allotted. It doesn't answer the question. For demolition to explain a "faster" fall then you'd have to wire every floor of the building."

Obviously not, the entire thing collapsed into the ground in just about 10 seconds, or are you debating this as well? How do you explain controlled demolition then? My understanding is that when a building is brought down by controlled demolition, explosive charges are usually placed at the bottom of the structure, in key structural points. The charges are detonated simultaneously, and gravity takes care of the rest as the building implodes in on itself. There is no or very little pancaking which can be proven by the amount of time it takes for the entire structure to collapse.

"Remember those fires above? You know, Jet-A burning in essentially a wind tunnel created by the holes in the builidng? Remember all the smoke? Steel doesn't like fire. Steel gets hot in fires. Steel weakens when it get sufficiently hot."

Yes, I do remember all of the black smoke (a sign of a smoldering, oxygen starved fire, not a raging one). Please explain to me how Jet Fuel, which does not burn hot enough to even come close to melting steel, in this case managed to burn several times hotter than phsyics allow, causing the collapse of the steel columns. If your reply is that it was not the jet fuel per se, but the office materials that caught fire and heated the steel columns, I can buy that, but then please please explain this:

How did the south tower which was hit at the corner (with most of the jet fuel spilling outside the building) collapse faster than the north tower which was a direct hit. Logic tells me that the North Tower should have sustained much more damage resulting in a more intense fire (with most of the jet fuel remaining inside the building) than the south tower, yet the North tower remained standing for a MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than the lesser damaged South Tower. Please explain this to me.

Also, please explain how WTC 7 collapsed the same way with no airplane impact.

"Once one beam collapsed the rest followed almost immediately as they had to carry more of the weight of the building. It's called a catostropic failure because the failure accelerates in a self-reinforcing cycle."

Sounds fair enough, do you have any evidence to support this?
posted by GrooveJedi at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2005


The problem with this theory is that the resistance of each floor would result in the entire process taking longer than it took

Again, why should this be different from the pancaking taking place at the bottom, as in you theory?

Also I'd really love an answer to my question as to why, if they were demolished from the bottom, no floors moved downward until "pancaked" by those coming down from above.
posted by uncle harold at 3:50 PM on June 16, 2005


thedevildancedlightly,

Yes, I do not hide the fact that I am anti-Israeli government. I do appreciate that you did not label me as an anti-semite, a lesser person would have unjustly jumped to that conclusion, so thank you for the disclaimer.

I believe that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

Perhaps if you spent half as much time researching some of the questions brought up in this thread as you did searching out my previous posts, you may come across some valid evidence and more raised questions.
posted by GrooveJedi at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2005


Also, the crushing of the floors in your scenario would take place at the bottom. That means, the building as a whole moves straight down. All floors that are still intact move as a whole until they hit the ground, where the "pancake". The floors of the towers were static, and the crushing took place from the top down. I would have thought you have watched those videos closely.

You are playing word games. The pancaking we are discussing refers to the pancaking of the building from the top down. I've seen all of the videos a million times, believe me. All you need to keep in mind is the formula for freefall. The pancaking from the top down holds no water when you consider the formula for freefall. If you care to debate this, by all means, please provide some explanation as to why that formula does not apply in this case.

Wow! Just wow. It's amazing what obvious facts people are able to blot out when they smell conspiracy.

Even more amazing is the fact that people can just flush common physics down the toilet if the results are too uncomfortable to deal with.
posted by GrooveJedi at 3:54 PM on June 16, 2005


All you need to keep in mind is the formula for freefall. If you care to debate this, by all means, please provide some explanation as to why that formula does not apply in this case.

I was not arguing the pancaking does not slow the process down. I (and TDDL) am arguing crushing the floors at the bottom, as per your version, has the same effect.

Also, for the third time: why did the floors below not move downward before being hit from the top? That is enough "physics" to show how retarded a demolition from the bottom is.
posted by uncle harold at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2005


The pancaking from the top down holds no water when you consider the formula for freefall. If you care to debate this, by all means, please provide some explanation as to why that formula does not apply in this case.

I think two people provided some good reasons as to why a building collapsing from the middle will fall in about the same time as a building collapsing from the bottom. In both cases each floor sequentially collapses from the weight of the floors above at a very high speed. If you wire the first floor of the building with dynamite you should observe the same speed of fall as if you take out a middle floor.

There's also the fact that photos show WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing from the middle, not the bottom. If you watch this video of the north tower the middle clearly collapses first (watch the top part of the building lean over a bit). So you have to at least claim that there were explosives on the middle floors as well.





You are playing word games. The pancaking we are discussing refers to the pancaking of the building from the top down.

I know that YOU mean "pancaking from the top down" but the POINT is that middle-down collapse and bottom-up collapse both result in similar stresses being placed on load-bearing structures. I wish I had two large buildings to blow up side-by-side to run the experiment, but I'm going to have to rely on verbal descriptions. The point is that you will observe the same "pancaking" if you blow out the first floor of a building as the entire building shifts downward and then each floor sequentially collapses. Think about it... the first floor is no longer there so the second floor comes crashing down and gets squished by the third floor, which gets squished by the fourth floor, fifth floor...

Obviously not, the entire thing collapsed into the ground in just about 10 seconds, or are you debating this as well?

Well, some people think that the North Tower took about 18.5 seconds to collapse and are kind enough to provide a time-keyed series of images. So, yeah, I'll debate that too.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:11 PM on June 16, 2005


Also I'd really love an answer to my question as to why, if they were demolished from the bottom, no floors moved downward until "pancaked" by those coming down from above.

Okay, I think I understand your question now. I can confidently say that I do not have an answer to it, but it is irrelevant and here is why:

We are debating whether the buildings came down due to fires or controlled demolition. The EXACT location of the explosive charges in the case of controlled demolition is a secondary matter, we are first just trying to prove controlled demolition. Perhaps charges are needed at key points throughout the entire building, not just at the bottom, but definitely at the bottom at least. I do not know, I am not a controlled demolition expert, but then again, we have the guy who ordered WTC 7 on video saying that they decided to demolish it and apparently even that evidence is not good enough for you.

I will give you that if the charges were placed only at the bottom, your pancaking theory makes sense.

Either way, it is plausible that there were charges detonated at the bottom as well as other floors of the building(s), which resulted in FREEFALL of the building, which you cannot deny without throwing physics in the proverbial trashcan. There is also plenty of photographic as well as video evidence to support theories of explosives on several floors.

The proof of freefall is in the videos, have a look:


Watch the video of WTC 7 collapse here
posted by GrooveJedi at 4:11 PM on June 16, 2005


groovejedi rarely comments and gives no information about himself - I'd not be surprised if that's just a sock puppet account for making crazy comments. Or maybe he's really just nuts, but...

If the airplanes had nothing to do with the destruction of the buildings, why have them involved at all? Was that just random luck? why not just blame terrorists for blowing the place up?

As I remember it, the collapse almost felt sickeningly slow - it seemed like each floor fell into the one below it and you could imagine the people who were trapped there... it did not seem instantaneous when I saw it live. Since that week when we saw it endlessly, i have not watched it, though.
posted by mdn at 4:14 PM on June 16, 2005


Fair enough. Although I still do not observe this pancaking and by my watch, the whole thing was over in just about 10 seconds (supporting the freefall theory). Regardless, you've made some valid points and we can agree to disagree on some of the details.

Now please explain WTC 7.

Please provide ANY evidence that this is not a controlled demolition.
posted by GrooveJedi at 4:16 PM on June 16, 2005


The EXACT location of the explosive charges in the case of controlled demolition is a secondary matter, we are first just trying to prove controlled demolition. Perhaps charges are needed at key points throughout the entire building, not just at the bottom, but definitely at the bottom at least.

1) A few post above it was a *primary* matter to explain your concept of "freefall".

2) Charges throughout the whole height of the towers, or parts of them, is probably why the floors in the lower part showed no sign of exploding or even moving before pushed down from above, right?
posted by uncle harold at 4:21 PM on June 16, 2005


groovejedi rarely comments and gives no information about himself - I'd not be surprised if that's just a sock puppet account for making crazy comments. Or maybe he's really just nuts, but...

You are correct, I rarely comment on MeFi, but I do read the threads on a daily basis, usually just too busy to comment but I'm on vacation at the moment. Additionally, I didn't realize I was required to give personal information about myself when debating these topics. So far, it's a healthy debate, interesting discussion and a little harmless arguments here and there, I don't know why you are so threatened by the whole thing, we're just discussing a topic... isn't that what this is all about?

If the airplanes had nothing to do with the destruction of the buildings, why have them involved at all?

Surely, even you must admit that an airplane had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7.

As I remember it, the collapse almost felt sickeningly slow - it seemed like each floor fell into the one below it and you could imagine the people who were trapped there... it did not seem instantaneous when I saw it live. Since that week when we saw it endlessly, i have not watched it, though.

Perhaps you need to go back and watch again since your memory is clearly distorted.
posted by GrooveJedi at 4:21 PM on June 16, 2005


we have the guy who ordered WTC 7 on video saying that they decided to demolish it and apparently even that evidence is not good enough for you.

Okay, you just lost all credibility there. He said there was a decision to "pull". Nobody knows if that meant "pull the firefighters from inside", "pull back away from the building because it's about to fall", or pull the cord to blow up the dynamite. But that's hardly him saying there was a decision to demolish. If you'd just said "we have the guy who ordered WTC on video saying they pulled the building" then you would have an arugable point. But claming that he OUTRIGHT SAID to demolish the building makes it pretty clear that you see what you want to see.

we can agree to disagree on some of the details.

I don't think the difference between collapsing from the middle and being exploded from below is a "detail". You claimed that Floor 1 was dynamited. The videos and photos above prove that the building was collapsing from the middle. Now you have to explain how demolitions crews got up to the burning floors, rigged the building, and got out before anybody noticed.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:34 PM on June 16, 2005


1) Yes it is a primary matter to explain freefall since charges would AT LEAST need to be denoated at the bottom (and perhaps in the middle as well which you competently illustrated).

2) There is a decent amount of evidence to support the claim that there were explosions at the bottom of the building. Evidence includes seismic data, numerous firefighters, engineers, and other whitnesses who claim there were explosions in the basement. You can read about some of it here and watch this interesting interview of a Construction worker on the scene.
posted by GrooveJedi at 4:40 PM on June 16, 2005


You can read about some of it here and watch this interesting interview of a Construction worker on the scene.

I can't watch the interview, but the text description doesn't seem particularly damning. The first thought I had when I heard his description was a transformer exploding. Given a huge mechanical and electrical shock (the lights dimmed, according to him) seeing a transformer explode wouldn't suprise me. Most transformers are filled with mineral oil (explains the petroleum smell and dark smoke) and they exlpode with quite a bit of force. When I lived in NYC a transformer exploded under my building on E 18th and we all thought a bomb had gone off on our block. We felt a building-rattling explosion followed by lights dimming and flickering and then going out. Black smoke was pouring out of the electric box and it appeared that the cover of the electric box had been blown off.

Without more information I can't say for certain, but that's just one possible explanation for his observations if what he says is true.

Tranformer explosion in Reno office building.

Underground transformers in Washington send manhole covers flying

Video of a transformer explosion (about halway down the page)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:00 PM on June 16, 2005


thedevildancedlightly,

Okay, this was a healthy debate for a minute, now you are turning it into a sham and you obviously have not researched this well enough. That being the case, allow me to show you the absurdity of your last post and show the readers that it is YOU who has lost all credibility.

He said there was a decision to "pull". Nobody knows if that meant "pull the firefighters from inside", "pull back away from the building because it's about to fall", or pull the cord to blow up the dynamite. But that's hardly him saying there was a decision to demolish.

Wrong again. He specifically said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it... and they made that decision to pull... AND WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE." (emphasis added).

He clearly says "PULL IT". Not "pull them," "pull back" "pull the firefighters" or any other nonsensical disinformation you are trying to use to cloud the issue. He says PULL IT, with the IT referring to WTC 7.

Additionally, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 (at least according to FEMA), so there wouldn't have been any firefighters to pull - this idea that he was referring to firefighters when he said "PULL IT" is insane.

Here is an MP3 of Silverstein's comments so you can hear for yourself.

Once again, he said "And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." ---> ask a 10 year old what he or she thinks this sentence means?

The term "pull it," when examined in this context clearly means the obvious. It is also consistent with the statement of one of the workers at Ground Zero in the same documentary --- "... we're getting ready to pull the building six."

Additionally, the collapse of WTC 7 resulted in a profit of about $500 million for Silverstein Properties, so there's also the motive to add onto the already overwhelming evidence above.

Comon Now, please stop this nonsense, it is OBVIOUS what he meant by this statement.

Finally, nowhere did I claim that Floor 1 was dynamited, now you are putting words into my mouth. I am not claiming to have the exact answers you are looking for, as I myself am still asking questions and searching for answers. There is alot of evidence to support the theory of explosions AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER. This could mean in the parking structure beneath, the basement, the lobby, the first few floors, etc. It does not mean Floor number 1 was dynamited, in fact I did not even use the word dynamite.

Now you have to explain how demolitions crews got up to the burning floors, rigged the building, and got out before anybody noticed.

No, I don't have to explain anything to you. Discussing how demolition crews planted the explosives is a discussion for the future - answers which I do not have. Please don't try to jump from one topic to the next, try to focus on the main point(s). If we are going to continue down the rabbit hole, we must agree on the idea of explosives resulting in controlled demolition, otherwise we go nowhere. If we can at least agree on that, then I'd be happy to answer your question .....

How were they able to demolish the building in such a short amount of time? Answer: Impossible. The charges must have been placed ahead of time, at least a few weeks of planning and there is your conspiracy. :)

And again, I ask - Do you have any evidence to support another explaination as to why WTC 7 collapsed in the manner it did?

You, sir, have lost all credibility.
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:13 PM on June 16, 2005


You, sir, have lost all credibility.

Please.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2005


Sorry for the broken link. Here is the correct link to the interview referenced above.

I absolutely agree that there is a possibility of one or more transformers exploding.

If you watch the interview (and do some further research) with an open mind, you will likely come to the same conclusion that it is also AT LEAST a possibility that the explosions were a result of explosive devices. Can you at least acknowledge that this is a possibility?
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:22 PM on June 16, 2005


That's it? No explanation as to how WTC 7 collapsed?

Are you throwing in the towel and admitting that the Silverstein comment can only mean the obvious?
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2005


GrooveJedi: I am not a controlled demolition expert

In fact, you're clearly not an engineer of any sort. You obviously have no idea what it would take to demolish a building and you have no understanding of the behavior of buildings or materials under extreme stresses. You've made this clear -- repeatedly.

Your theories are the result of engineering ignorance and political bias. Why should you be taken seriously?
posted by event at 6:43 PM on June 16, 2005


Ummm, they tried explosions at the base of the towers once before in 1993. It didn't work.

Anybody who has any familiarity with the amount of work and effort it takes to do professional demolition knows this isn't even in the remote possibility world. The prep work, the pre-demolition, etc. takes weeks and a lot of demolition in and of itself.

Anybody who has any familiarity with the design of the twin towers knows why they failed. It's Engineering and Physics 101. Folks not familiar with those classes will cling to the conspiracy theories, while those who know basic math and gravity equations (and how each floor in the towers were supported -- by brackets and the outer structure, not internal supports like traditionally built steel buildings), will understand why they fell like they did.

In fact, the lessons learned by this tragedy are now taught in many university engineering classes.
posted by docjohn at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2005


Right on.
posted by event at 6:58 PM on June 16, 2005


In fact, you're clearly not an engineer of any sort. You obviously have no idea what it would take to demolish a building and you have no understanding of the behavior of buildings or materials under extreme stresses. You've made this clear -- repeatedly.

So, can you explain then how WTC 7 came down, since you're such the expert?

Your theories are the result of engineering ignorance and political bias. Why should you be taken seriously?

There are PLENTY of engineers and controlled demolition experts who agree that there were explosives in the buildings that day (at least WTC 7). Would you call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant, even these people with the background in those fields?

Once again, show me some evidence, please.
posted by GrooveJedi at 6:59 PM on June 16, 2005


The explosions at the base of the tower in 1993 were OUTSIDE the tower, not inside.
posted by GrooveJedi at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2005


Surely, even you must admit that an airplane had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7.

So you think they pre-wired WTC-7 in order to demolish it and blame that on the middle east, so they could invade - and then they just got lucky and some hijackers decided to do in the twin towers, but they went ahead and blew up WTC-7 and really that's what ultimately made their case ?!! If you're going to claim a conspiracy theory, it is really lame to rely on the small building that no one would have noticed one way or the other. If it were still standing, nothing at all would be different with regards to the response to the terrorist acts.

Perhaps you need to go back and watch again since your memory is clearly distorted.

The link above says almost 18 seconds. That is quite a long time.
posted by mdn at 7:07 PM on June 16, 2005


Once again, show me some evidence, please.

If you're going to claim demolition, then the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. You have no video, no photographs, and no eyewitnesses of anything remotely resembling demolition. In fact, your claim is unsupported by any physical evidence whatsoever.

All you have is, "Look at the video of WTC 7 collapsing -- it looks similar to this video of some other building I saw that was demolished! Therefore, WTC 7 was demolished!" That is a logical fallacy. You've also told us that you're not a controlled demolitions expert: that means you're not qualified to judge, anyway.

People who are qualified? They wrote the FEMA report -- they list what the most likely causes were and demolition is not one of them.
posted by event at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2005


The explosions at the base of the tower in 1993 were OUTSIDE the tower, not inside

Okay, you just further proved your vast ignorance of the facts. I think a lot of people were perfectly happy to have a conversation with you until you proved that you were both ignorant AND lazy. I don't know enough about you---other than your MeFi comments which have consisted by-and-large of conspiracy theories about Israel---so I won't pass judgment on whether your lack of knowledge is intentional or not.

That said, the 1993 explosion was in a parking garage that underlies both WTC buildings. So you're correct in the limited sense that it wasn't "in" the tower, but it was in the foundation to both buildings and there were significant concerns about the stability of the structure. By no means was the 1993 bombing "outside" the WTC. "Outside" means, well, outside. In the substructure is not outside.
The blast was centered on the B2 level. It was so intense that it caused the collapse of the steel reinforced concrete floor to the floor below (B3 level), which in turn caused more collapses. Tons of debris were piled onto the B6 level floor. A steel fire door that opens to the B2 level from a stairway from the B1 level was blown off it's hinges and embedded into a wall 35 feet away. (Source)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:43 PM on June 16, 2005


I apologize for the error. You are correct in your statement that the explosives were in the parking garage. The 1993 bombing did not result in its probable intended purpose, the complete destruction of the WTC towers. Perhaps those responsible learned from their mistake(s) and got it right on 9/11. I apologize for the error.

You say the burden of proof is on me. I have provided what I believe is at least SOMEWHAT sufficient evidence of controlled demolition in two forms. Now, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to support your (the official) version of events. I have posted links to video, audio, photographs and eyewitness reports. You have posted links to absolutely nothing that supports your stance on the issue. Once again, please explain these 2 points. Your continuous silence on these issues is damning.

1) The manner in which the building collapses which is consistent with freefall and controlled demolition. I have provided several links that support the controlled demolition theory and can provide more proof to support this theory. You have provided NOTHING to support the theory that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

2) The damning evidence of Larry Silverstein's comments to pull the building. I have sufficiently disproven your garbage statements about Silverstein's comments meaning something other than the obvious. You stated that perhaps the word PULL may have meant a number of different things, all hogwash when examined closely. Listen to the MP3 and anyone with half a brain will agree that it means only one thing - they decided to bring WTC 7 DOWN. Your smoke and mirrors act is irresponsible and exposes your lack of knowledge on the subject (you even had no clue what the guy said)

You have repeatedly refused to comment on these two issues and until you do, I'm afraid this argument is at a standstill. I do not claim to have all of the facts and to know the "truth." I am only raising questions and discrepencies in the official version of events as I see them. I am open to the possibility that there are other explanations for these discrepancies, which is why I am asking anyone on this forum to please provide plausible or possible explanations to them. Your possible explanation of transformers exploding at ground level is sufficient for me, yet you continue to avoid the above 2 issues.

I ask you again (for perhaps the 5th or 6th time) - Please explain to me

1) how WTC 7 collapses in the manner it does (consistent with the freefall theory)

and

2) Why Silverstein says what he says, and how can it mean anything OTHER THAN "bring down WTC 7"

Until you address the above two issues, we are at a standstill. If you would like to continue a healthy debate, please concentrate your efforts on the above two points which I have taken the time to outline and you continue to ignore while providing absolutely ZERO evidence to support your theories.
posted by GrooveJedi at 1:11 AM on June 17, 2005


In fact, your claim is unsupported by any physical evidence whatsoever.

And your claim (the official version of events) is also unsupported by any physical evidence.
posted by GrooveJedi at 1:14 AM on June 17, 2005


I just can't believe you are still babbling about that freefall stuff. I guess you really need to have demonstrated on a model that, demolition or not, at the bottom or not, does not change a thing here. There is not difference. Floors always crash into each other. Only the order in which they do is reversed.

It's Engineering and Physics 101. Folks not familiar with those classes will cling to the conspiracy theories, while those who know basic math and gravity equations (and how each floor in the towers were supported -- by brackets and the outer structure, not internal supports like traditionally built steel buildings), will understand why they fell like they did.

Heck, I'd go so far as to say it's sandbox 101. If you have ever built a castle from sand or legos you know static stability means nothing if the structure is hit from above with a sudden weight. Especially if you had a younger brother.
posted by uncle harold at 4:26 AM on June 17, 2005


sh... sorry for the dp.

*stands in the corner for 2 hours*
posted by uncle harold at 4:27 AM on June 17, 2005


1) The manner in which the building collapses which is consistent with freefall and controlled demolition.

The load bearing members of the building failed; the building collapsed. Whether the load bearing members failed due to heat stress or demolition, the building still freefalls.

I have provided several links that support the controlled demolition theory and can provide more proof to support this theory. You have provided NOTHING to support the theory that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

After the building collapsed, investigators found many pieces of the load bearing trusses that were deformed due to heat stress. This is documented in the FEMA report.

2) The damning evidence of Larry Silverstein's comments to pull the building.

HAHAHAHAHA! "Damning evidence!"
posted by event at 5:48 AM on June 17, 2005


[removed uncle harold's dp]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:56 AM on June 17, 2005


Groovejedi, once again, what kind of lame 'inside job' would only bring down one small extremely damaged building with no people inside?

Whether or not #7 fell is completely unimportant to most people. I didn't even remember that it had fallen, and I knew someone who was in that building earlier in the day. If demolishing it were something that could be done, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with their having done it. I do not know whether it just fell or if they had some way of doing a 'controlled fall', or encouraging it - now that I think about it, that sounds familiar from that evening, that it was beyond saving so they helped it collapse or something....

But if you're making a claim for a conspiracy, you have to account for the planes and the towers. Those in themselves were plenty, so why would the gov't add on to that? And you don't even seem to be trying to suggest that they were the result of the gov't. So you're suggesting a really stupid evil plan here - to wire a building to demolish it, weeks in advance, in order to add almost nothing to the outrage caused by terrorists, and leave oneself open to numerous avenues of scandal (those who wired it could come forward; those working in the wreckage could discover evidence; the wiring itself could fail due to damage anyway...)
posted by mdn at 6:28 AM on June 17, 2005


Still waiting for someone to explain how WTC 7 fell.
posted by GrooveJedi at 8:55 AM on June 17, 2005


Still waiting for someone to explain how WTC 7 fell.

Gravity.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2005


Still waiting for you to get a clue, buddy. You have presented no evidence whatsoever for your extraordinary claims.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:12 AM on June 17, 2005


Still waiting for someone to explain how WTC 7 fell.

Look at this diagram. (The diagram is straight out of the FEMA report, but I'm linking to the ridiculous commented version because it's the only web version of the FEMA report I can find.) This is the major load-bearing truss in the lower portion of the building. Note that the apex of the truss (the key load-bearing point) is slightly off center to the left.

Now look at this picture, straight off one of these wackjob conspiracy sites. Note that the building is not, in fact, collapsing straight down but rather it is shearing along a line slightly off-center to the left (the roof of the building started out level). In fact, as the FEMA report documents, this shear line is exactly in line with the truss. Ergo, the truss failed; it was the primary load bearing truss for the building, and when it failed, the building collapsed.

There is considerably more evidence for the failure of that particular truss, and there is also no question that if this truss failed, the building WOULD collapse, but I'm not going to paraphrase the entire damn FEMA report for you.

Now, you can argue about what caused the truss to fail, you say demolitions, others say heat stress. But the simple fact is that the remnants of that truss were found and they were distorted, bent, and broken due to heat stress. Again, this is straight out of the FEMA report.
posted by event at 12:21 PM on June 17, 2005


I was in New York on 9/11, about a mile north of the towers. Not to be overtly snarky, but I'm pretty confident that the buildings collpased because of the planes I watched fly into them.

I can't even grasp the concept of an "inside job" knocking the towers down. Does that mean... what? Airplanes weren't flown into the buildings?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2005


I was in New York on 9/11, about a mile north of the towers. Not to be overtly snarky, but I'm pretty confident that the buildings collpased because of the planes I watched fly into them.

and WTC 7?
posted by GrooveJedi at 1:03 PM on June 17, 2005


What a bunch of you seem to be suggesting is that debris from the collapsing WTC towers sparked fires in WTC 7. These fires were allowed to burn and eventually caused enough damage to cause the building to implode.

There are several unexplained issues here.

1. Silverstein and the FDNY are on the record as saying they were not going to fight the fires so they had no intention of saving the building. They didn't try to save it. Is it a big step to go from not saving it to helping come down? Knowing it was coming down I imagine they wanted to minimize damage to other structures.

2. What was the fuel in the building that burned hot enough and long enough to cause the structural failure of steel and concrete? The FEMA report mentions some fuel tanks but isn't clear.

3. How did a bunch of random uncontrolled fires cause a tidy implosion? Answer this one and you can put the Loizeaux family out of business.
posted by euphorb at 1:03 PM on June 17, 2005


What was the fuel in the building that burned hot enough and long enough to cause the structural failure of steel and concrete? The FEMA report mentions some fuel tanks but isn't clear.

I doubt you read the FEMA report. If so you must have missed Section 5.4, "Building Loads" and especially Table 5.2, "WTC 7 Fuel Distribution Systems". It spends the better part of a few pages describing in great detail where and how fuel was stored for various generators throughout the building. Of particular interest might be the 6,000 gallon oil tank between the elevator shafts on the 2nd-3rd floors. There was a 275-gallon tank on the 7th floor as well. A broken water main upstream caused the building sprinklers to stop working, and everything flamable on the lower floors of the buildings burned. Think oil tanks, carpets, desks, walls, chairs, files, furniture, wiring, etc. A long, slow burn can do just as much damage to steel and concrete as a hot fast burn.

3. How did a bunch of random uncontrolled fires cause a tidy implosion? Answer this one and you can put the Loizeaux family out of business.

WTC 7 was not "tidy", any professional demolitions expert would be embarassed to have their name on it. Look at the way the roof slants before caving in. It just about did slide off the whole building before the frame gave out completely. What pattern would you expect if an internal truss was weakened by fire, leading to a collapse? Steel-framed buildings don't fall over sideways--they don't have nearly enough lateral support to do that. A video of a 5-floor building (that appears to be concrete and/or wood-framed) falling sideways for unclear reasons does not in any way approximate a steel-framed building with a major internal collapse.

1. Silverstein and the FDNY are on the record as saying they were not going to fight the fires so they had no intention of saving the building. They didn't try to save it. Is it a big step to go from not saving it to helping come down? Knowing it was coming down I imagine they wanted to minimize damage to other structures.

So a demolitions crew went into the burning building, put charges on all of the key steel sections, and got out before anybody noticed that somebody was running dynamite through the building? Somehow FEMA realized that they had an opportunity to take another building down, found a demolitions contractor who happened to be in NYC that day and was somehow able to get a load of explosives through the city and to the site, and was willing to carry explosives into a burning building? Not only that, this isn't a movie where it takes two seconds to set up a charge. You need to cut through all the masonry surrounding the steel beams before you can attach any sort of charge. So in addition to having explosives they would have needed sawz-alls. Don't forget that you need to study the blueprints before you go around slapping dynamite to steel, so they would have had to find the blueprints and somebody able to figure out the best way to take the building down. All of this in the middle of hell breaking loose over all of lower manhattan? Please. Making a decision to not risk more lives fighting a fire is not the same as making a decision to risk more lives by sending people carrying explosives into a burning building.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:37 PM on June 17, 2005


GrooveJedi, you started out claiming the explanation for the collapse of the entire WTC complex was a fabrication. Now you only questions the collapse of building 7. Is that correct? You are convinced that the standard explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 is substancially correct?
posted by Chuckles at 3:44 PM on June 17, 2005


As a structural engineer, I'd like to thank thedevildancedlightly and others for doing some heavy lifting here. While not always using the correct terminology and being particularly precise, you've done Mefi a good service in refuting the ramblings of GrooveJedi and an emeritus Economics professor that I don't think I have the patience for.

If the conspiracy theorists want to have a 9/11 conspiracy theory that the US gov't was behind it all, I don't understand why they wouldn't latch on to the simplest one possible (not that I believe this in any way): have some sort of black-op to recruit some jihadists to fly airplanes into buildings. I mean this would be far easier to imagine that all the crap these non-engineers are spewing out about building demolition. But I guess it would be far less interesting, and the conspiracy theorists can always count on the public's ignorance of science, math, and engineering when spreading their demo theories.
posted by pitchblende at 5:02 PM on June 17, 2005


I'd like to thank thedevildancedlightly and others for doing some heavy lifting here. While not always using the correct terminology and being particularly precise

-sheepish- Sorry about the terminology and precision... I am obviously not a structural engineer. Hopefully you'll be around the next time this comes up and I can learn the terms and whatnot better. Thanks! :)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2005


I doubt you read the FEMA report.

Yes of course I read the report. I linked to it way upthread which is probably how you found it.

Of particular interest might be the 6,000 gallon oil tank between the elevator shafts on the 2nd-3rd floors.

None of the scenarios described include a failure of the 6,000 gallon tank as a contributing factor in the collapse.

Here is what may have happened according to the report: When power failed, emergency pumps began to pump fuel from the tanks. Debris from the collapse of WTC penetrated the building and severed inner and outer pipes. The fuel began pooling under the transfer trusses. Fires sparked by falling debris reached the pool of fuel and began to burn. Sufficient oxygen was supplied through the ventilation system. The fire burned through the fireproofing on the steel trusses and weakened them leading to collapse.

But they say,

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has a low probability of occurrence.

You can interpret that the way you want but to me that translates to, "We have no idea what happened so all we can do is throw out some WAGs"

If I was a civil engineer and this was a dam that failed I would be highly interested in the cause especially if this was the first dam ever to fail. Correct me if I'm wrong but steel buildings don't normally collapse due to fire. This one did. I'm curious why. You don't seem to be.
posted by euphorb at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2005


GrooveJedi, you started out claiming the explanation for the collapse of the entire WTC complex was a fabrication. Now you only questions the collapse of building 7. Is that correct? You are convinced that the standard explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 is substancially correct?

Incorrect. I believe both WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by controlled demolition, however the evidence is stronger with WTC 7 (especially considering that this building was not hit by an aircraft)

If the conspiracy theorists want to have a 9/11 conspiracy theory that the US gov't was behind it all, I don't understand why they wouldn't latch on to the simplest one possible (not that I believe this in any way): have some sort of black-op to recruit some jihadists to fly airplanes into buildings.

It's always much easier to throw the term "conspiracy theory" around instead of actually trying to focus on the evidence and discussing the points of argument. That's okay though, both sides can play that game, as the official version that 19 Arab Hijackers with little or no flying skills were somehow able to successfully and simultaneously hijack 4 airplanes, outsmarting the most efficient military defense the world has ever seen with a few boxcutters and then fly them with the utmost precision into the two towers and Pentagon with absolutely no air force in sight for nearly an hour.

Talk about conspiracy theories, that is the most ridiculous explanation (with zero evidence to support it) out there.

Here is what may have happened according to the report: When power failed, emergency pumps began to pump fuel from the tanks. Debris from the collapse of WTC penetrated the building and severed inner and outer pipes. The fuel began pooling under the transfer trusses. Fires sparked by falling debris reached the pool of fuel and began to burn. Sufficient oxygen was supplied through the ventilation system. The fire burned through the fireproofing on the steel trusses and weakened them leading to collapse.

Hey, that sounds reasonable enough to me, FEMA. Got any evidence to support these claims? No, I didn't think so.

The FEMA report makes alot of credible claims. Their explanations are definitely plausible. The only problem is, they have provided no evidence to support these claims.

The Windsor building in Madrid had RAGING fires for 48 hours and remained standing. Twin Towers both fell in less than 2 hours from a few small office fires (first time in the history of the world that a fire supposedly caused a building to collapse and it magically happened twice in one day, imagine that).

Once again, I would love to see any evidence that can sufficiently explain why the towers fell the way they did (especially WTC 7) and as of yet, none has been provided.

As a structural engineer, I'd like to thank thedevildancedlightly and others for doing some heavy lifting here. While not always using the correct terminology and being particularly precise, you've done Mefi a good service in refuting the ramblings of GrooveJedi and an emeritus Economics professor that I don't think I have the patience for.

Bye the way, there are PLENY of Air Force Pilots, Structural Engineers, controlled demolition experts, and military personnel that agree these towers were taken down by controlled demolition. But I'm sure you don't have the patience for any of them either.
posted by GrooveJedi at 8:50 AM on June 20, 2005


Twin Towers both fell in less than 2 hours from a few small office fires

Umm, it wasn't just "a few small office fires." Thta's like calling Nagasaki "a little barbecue". Remember the jet aircraft fully loaded with fuel that impacted the structure and left very large visible holes? I don't imagine that having aircraft fly through a building really enhances the fire-resistance of the building.

first time in the history of the world that a fire supposedly caused a building to collapse

Fires cause buildings to collapse all the time. Local housefires cause "buildings" to collapse. I think you might mean large steel-framed building, but I can't be sure. So, again, your claims are unsupported.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:34 AM on June 21, 2005


I meant skyscrapers. Do the research.
posted by GrooveJedi at 1:36 PM on June 24, 2005


« Older Tsunami in Pacific   |   Bush meets with NK gulag survivor / author Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments