Common Myths & Factual Inaccuracies of the Debunker Movement

[Ghost in the Machine]

1.) There wouldn't have been time to plant the tons of explosives needed for controlled demolition:

This is false, as they had plenty of time to set explosives while Marvin Bush was a principal in the company in charge of security.

2.) It would have taken tons of explosives to bring the buildings down.

It's funny that they say this, but turn right around and say that, according to NIST, WTC7 could have collapsed due to the failure of ONE TRUSS. It wouldn't have taken tons of explosives, just a few well placed charges on key columns. If NIST could look at plans and figure out one or two columns could have brought the building down, why couldn't operatives in the Bush controlled security company, who had access to the building blueprints, figure out the same thing?

3.) Explosives would have been detected on the seismographs due to significant spikes, as explained by Brent Blanchard of Implosion World.

This is false also, if you consider the usage of several small, well placed charges. A blast from a large grenade would only measure a .05 on a seismograph, or about the seismic energy yield of 12.4 pounds of TNT. Anything less than a 2.0 is considered a microquake, and there are about 8,000 of them that happen every day. Keep in mind that these are recordings near the epicenter and the seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., were 21 miles north of the WTC. How much would a 0.5 magnitude level blast at the epicenter dissipate before it traveled 21 miles? It probably wouldn't even register at all, much less as a "significant spike"... how would it be possible to differentiate this reading from any of the other 8,000/day readings in this range?

4.)The Twin Towers weren't controlled demolition because they fell from the top down, exactly the opposite of CD.

Yes, because that could have been exactly the plan. If you were trying to pull this off, would *you* make it look obvious? No, you wouldn't, would you? Think of the criminal who robs and kills someone in their home, then sets the home on fire in an attempt to cover up their crime. They want to give the appearance that the victim died in an accidental fire.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Ghost

[mhatrw]

1. You forgot one. I would add it here, but I don't want to get this topic locked as well. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. :-) .... Thanks mhatrw....

:hug:

Ghost

[LARED]

2. Re

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes. This post is so stupid it's not worth the time to respond.

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. And yet you responded...

that must mean that you're beyond stupid, right?

But coming from a guy who has never once, in his entire existence on this site, posted anything *remotely* intelligent, or relevant, I take your comments with a ton of salt....

[LARED]

4. Are you familiar with the term

irony. I ask because many CT'er seem to lack an irony gene.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Do you have anything intelligent, or relevant, to add to the conversation?

OCTers seem to lack that ability. You're not doing anything to change that perception, either...

[LARED]

14. Nope, in what way could anyone intelligentlly ADD to the OP? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. Well, several others have managed to, I guess you just lack the ability?

:shrug:

[LARED]

22. Maybe they have more patience than I.

I mean seriously the OP is about non-existent explosives in the buildings. Why would I want to provide a technical critique about a piece of fiction again, and again?

[AZCat]

6. Point #1 contains an inaccuracy.

Marvin Bush was not a principal of the company in charge of security of the WTC. JackRiddler once posted about this and I forgot to bookmark his well-written OP, but fortunately DU's search feature kicks ass. You can find his OP (and the subsequent discussion) here.

Point #2 refers to the same inaccuracy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Thank you for the link, AZCat...

Interesting reading, I'll say that much...

JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-09-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. ADDENDUM: Putting Securacom's role in context
Here is a great article I found from 1997 - !!! - describing the implementation of the new security systems at WTC following the 1993 attacks.

The main plan seems to have been drawn up by KROLL ASSOCIATES - very high on the spook totem poll, these are the guys who contract presidential security to the Secret Service and what not. (Also, they employed Jerome Hauer!)

http://securitysolutions.com/mag/security_world_trade_center

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=113081&mesg_id=122182

Ghost

[AZCat]

15. It's the same goddamn mistake every time.

They were preparing for the last war, not the next one. All their expensive security measures did fuck-all against the devious, yet surprisingly unsophisticated method of flying hijacked aircraft into the towers. Boom! There's your fucking bombs, jackasses. I'm sorry that the terrorists didn't stop to register their vehicles at your "manned, bullet-resistant guard booths" before slamming their planes into the buildings. Now that's the sort of idea I'd grant a Bush: "Hey, these terrorists did 'X' last time, I bet they'll try the exact same thing again."

[seemslikeadream]

7. There was no stand down

Just intentional confusion.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Don't forget the Coincidence Theorists!

:hi:

[hack89]

8. Number 2 is not completely right either

a small amount of explosives would be all you needed if you are willing to accept that the following were not caused by high explosives:

1. pulverization of all the concrete.

2. the massive "explosion" of dust and debris at the start of the collapse

3. the pyroclastic flows.


The problem you have presented the truth movement is that these three things are "smoking" guns to many of CD. Are you saying that they are wrong?

What you are saying, I think, is that all you needed were relatively small charges on the core columns - their detonations wouldn't even be visible. Everything else is simply due to the KE of the towers. Is that correct?

Or do you believe that after carefully calculating how much explosives was needed, they tossed in tons of additional charges to pulverize all the floors?

[Realityhack]

10. That also ignores the fireballs

Thats a lot of fuel one way or another. How many pounds of explosives would be needed to fake that?

This all operates on the theory that a small number of charges cutting a few key spots would result in exactly what we saw when an airplane cut a few key columns.
Why the conjecture about explosives?

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Who said the fireballs were fake?? I'm not a no-planer, sorry to disappoint..

The planes were real, and they were for the "shock & awe" effect... the charges were there to finish the job...

[Realityhack]

17. What?!?

So they flew planes into a building... which is more than enough right there to scare the crap out of people. Planes which are sufficient to explain the collapse on their own.

Then they detonate explosives to 'finish the job'

Explosives that they KNEW IN ADVANCE would be magically unaffected by the impact of the jetliner and subsequent explosion and uncontrolled fire. AND were located close enough to the impact area of the jet to make it look like that was the sole cause.

And they did this TWICE. then blew up a building that was likely to be in the path of debris from the first two buildings?

And of course one building definitely would not be enough for 'their' plan right?

And they do all of this without any leaks.

This sounds like a 'god of the gaps' argument from someone unfamiliar with the structural models etc.

[seemslikeadream]

21. Some of the folks I know tend to think those explosives were put there

initially for a very legitimate reason in case the building had to be "pulled" Not just for that day, but it did come in handy for building 7

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. I've heard that before too, but I've never seen it done *during* construction..

and that seems like the perfect time to do that, but who knows *what* someone can do *after* the construction workers are gone.

[Realityhack]

30. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!

Your actually seriously considering that someone planted explosives in the building during construction just in case they needed to demolish the building someday?

I think you are genuinely beyond hope of any sort of reasoning skills.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. No, what part of "I've never seen it done *during* construction" did you not understand?

I have, however, heard people mention the theory that she was referring to. Not on a jobsite though, on a website. Maybe that wasn't clear, huh?

Hey, btw, you could fuck a building up pretty good by just knowing where the tension cables are located and severing some of them....

[Realityhack]

44. I think I missread your attitude towards the subject

I apologize.

'theories' like that get me a bit upset. I can't understand why people entertain such ideas.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. No problem, man.... n/t

[wildbilln864]

23. "Planes which are sufficient to explain the collapse on their own. " Wrong!

Those buildings were specifically built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. Probably would withstand multiple hits according to the WTC's construction manager.

[Realityhack]

29. I think I responded to this line of debate in another thread.

But you might want to think about:

Did the engineers at the time have the same sophistication in their simulations that we do now?
Was it a 707 at 600mph? (of course not)
Did the impact alone bring the building down?
Did that analysis take into account loss of fireproofing?

Seriously. There are simulations to show how this is possible. You can question them but you will have to come up with something a hell of a lot more scientific than what someone said when the towers where being constructed, even if they where an expert.

So if you don't think the current model is sufficient please feel free to prove it wrong and submit your results to an engineering journal. It would not be the first flaw found in someones model of the collapse.

But until you have something more substantial than that quote (which the investigators where well aware of) I don't see any reason to reconsider the current model.

[wildbilln864]

37. okay...

"Did the engineers at the time have the same sophistication in their simulations that we do now?"
So what if they were adequate for the task and worked?

"Was it a 707 at 600mph? (of course not)" 600mph!? Neither did a plane go 600 mph on 911! :rofl:
Did the impact alone bring the building down? Nope. I believe explosives and/or incendiaries wer required to accomplish that.

"Did that analysis take into account loss of fireproofing?"
Loss of fire proofing on a few floors did not weaken the undamaged massive core columns below and above the impact area that helped support the buildings.

"Seriously. There are simulations to show how this is possible. You can question them but you will have to come up with something a hell of a lot more scientific than what someone said when the towers where being constructed, even if they where an expert. "
Seriously. No there's not! There is only one credibie simulation and it fails to go past the point of collapse initiation.

"So if you don't think the current model is sufficient please feel free to prove it wrong and submit your results to an engineering journal. It would not be the first flaw found in someones model of the collapse.

But until you have something more substantial than that quote (which the investigators where well aware of) I don't see any reason to reconsider the current model. "

What current model?

[Realityhack]

41. Thats an odd response.

>>Did the engineers at the time have the same sophistication in their simulations that we do now?
>So what if they were adequate for the task and worked?"
On what basis are you making the judgment that they where adequate and worked?

>>Was it a 707 at 600mph? (of course not)
>600mph!? Neither did a plane go 600 mph on 911! :rofl:
Cute. IIRC that was the model and speed in the original calculations (I could be wrong) which is the only reason I sited a speed. I know full well the impact speed was not 600mph.
So the question stands. Was it in fact a different plane? (yes of course it was) and the following obvious question of what differences between the planes might be significant to this analysis?

>Did the impact alone bring the building down? Nope. I believe explosives and/or incendiaries wer required to accomplish that.
On what basis? You have failed to provide a case for why that would be needed.

>>Did that analysis take into account loss of fireproofing?
>Loss of fire proofing on a few floors did not weaken the undamaged massive core columns below and above the impact area that helped support the buildings.
So?

>>Seriously. There are simulations to show how this is possible. You can question them but you will have to come up with something a hell of a lot more scientific than what someone said when the towers where being constructed, even if they where an expert.
>Seriously. No there's not! There is only one credibie simulation and it fails to go past the point of collapse initiation.
Are you claiming that collapse could not initiate without explosives, or that it needed explosives after the initiation to continue collapsing? Once the collapse is initiated... the building collapses. Do you have specific questions you feel need to be addressed post initiation? If so what are they?
Frankly I think your response here is a typical red-herring. "but it stops at initiation!!" So? You think they should have continued until every particle was placed on the ground?

>>So if you don't think the current model is sufficient please feel free to prove it wrong and submit your results to an engineering journal. It would not be the first flaw found in someones model of the collapse.
>>But until you have something more substantial than that quote (which the investigators where well aware of) I don't see any reason to reconsider the current model. "
>What current model?
Um... I don't know... maybe the one you said stops at initiation?

[Realityhack]

42. BTW enough with the passive agressive emoticons.

Rofl popcorn eyes rolling etc.

You should know that just about every time I have seen you use and emoticon it is right after you completely misinterpreted a persons post or made a straw man to poke at.
It's like trying to discuss something serious with the third grade class clown.

[wildbilln864]

45. nevermind...nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. No, I don't think "tons of explosives" were needed...

"What you are saying, I think, is that all you needed were relatively small charges on the core columns - their detonations wouldn't even be visible. Everything else is simply due to the KE of the towers. Is that correct?"

Yes, that is correct. The charges (if there were any) *could* have been set in a night or two by a couple of teams doing an "elevator inspection". If I recall correctly, the elevator shafts were built into, or around, the core.

I'm not saying this *is* what happened, just saying that it's a possibility and giving an alternative way that it could have been done without tons of explosives....

The planes were the "shock & awe" diversion...

[hack89]

38. That's fine - there are many truthers here that would disagree with you though.

the question then becomes whether the impact of a 767 and the resultant fires can do the same damage as a handful of cutting charges on the core columns. Because if is the answer is yes, then you have validated the official story.

[eomer]

39. The answer to that question is easy.

Obviously the impact of a 767 and the resultant fires cannot do the same damage as a handful of cutting charges. The damage from those two causes would obviously be as different as night and day. So the question doesn't become anything -- it stays the same one as always: could the damage of the planes and fires bring down the towers and, alternatively, could cutting charges bring down the towers (and, in both cases, bring them down in a way that is consistent with all known evidence).

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. No "tons of explosives"

Some "truth-be-told'ers" use the fact that the buildings came down so quick, "pulverizaton" of concrete, and expultion of debris as evidence that there were explosives planted on each and every floor.

If that were true and each floor had aprox 20 x 10 lb cutting charges placed amongst the core colums. That means each building would require 22,000 lbs of explosives = 11 tons of explosives in each building.

Say it took only 10 min to prepare each cutting charge. It would take 367 man-hours to complete the work. A 10 man team per tower would take 4 full days to complete.

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. I'm not concerned with what some "truth be told'ers" have to say...

If you haven't noticed, I don't parrot what other people say, I make my own analysis and/or assumptions. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I have no problem admitting it when I am... Also, as I've pointed out before, the trick would be to make it NOT look like a CD, so it didn't have to be as precise, therefore requiring much less planning and materials...

Thanks for your calculations, though... I had asked before if anyone knew how much explosives would be needed if it were a true CD.


PEACE!

Ghost

[Realityhack]

9. You seem to be jumping around a bit

First off point one and two are reversed. First you determine the amount of explosive needed then you determine if their was time.

Secondly you seem to be skipping between buildings and time frames.

"according to NIST, WTC7 could have collapsed due to the failure of ONE TRUSS. It wouldn't have taken tons of explosives, just a few well placed charges on key columns."
That would be one truss AFTER damage from the falling WTC tower landing on it and fire damage right?

And this only addresses building 7. What about the twin towers?
What amount of explosives would be required to bring them down? How long would it take to set up the charges? How much more explosive would be needed if you made no cuts in advance?

Your third 'point' also ignores which building or buildings we are talking about.

this is of course ignoring a number of other important questions such as why the hell someone would think that the second and third buildings demolitions charges would stay intact after the first building was destroyed. Believe it or not explosive demolition is not perfect.

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Yeah, I'm not a professional writer, I just write down some thoughts as they come to me...

The third point addresses ALL of the buildings...


"this is of course ignoring a number of other important questions such as why the hell someone would think that the second and third buildings demolitions charges would stay intact after the first building was destroyed. Believe it or not explosive demolition is not perfect."

I'm thinking of the charges being placed into holes drilled into concrete, with wires for the radio controlled detonators hanging out. It's not impossible to drill a hole, put some C4 in it, leave the wire hanging out, then cover the hole with spackle or even some rapidset concrete....

[Realityhack]

19. I think...

Neither of us knows enough about the buildings structure, demolitions, shaped cutting charges, etc. to claim we know the amount of explosive needed to perform such an operation.

I think I CAN say that hitting a building with a jetliner is likely to fuck up your demolition plan more than a bit.

We have an adequate model of how the buildings collapsed. Why do you feel the need to throw explosives in when their is absolutely no evidence to suggest they where used?

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. I don't know about you, but I've erected more steel framed buildings than I can count...

... or remember.... but you're right, it doesn't mean I know about demolition. it also doesn't mean I know all about the structure of *those* buildings, but I *do* understand more than a little about how *buildings* are constructed with steel.

"We have an adequate model of how the buildings collapsed. Why do you feel the need to throw explosives in when their is absolutely no evidence to suggest they where used?"

Actually, many witnesses reported hearing explosions. Now, these explosions could have been *anything*, right? They could have been oxygen bottles, they could have been aerosol cans, they could have been cleaning fluids for big printers in a printing room, they could have been cans of kerosene reportedly present that were used for generators and heaters, or hey, they *could* have been small charges going off to create a controlled demolition, right? Now with this in mind, I think it would be majorly important to rule this out one hundred percent so that there could be *no* question about it. You don't achieve that by dismissing CD out of hand and not even testing for explosives.

I think I've raised a valid point concerning the amount of explosives that would be required. The trick on this part would been to make it NOT look like CD. It wouldn't have taken "months to prep and tons of explosives", as has been said, to bring those towers down. I also think I raise a valid point about the seismographs that can put questions to Implosion World's "report".

Peace!

Ghost

[Diane_nyc]

34. Witnesses heard explosions - but were any explosions loud enough to be demolition charges?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212321">Ghost in the Machine wrote:

Actually, many witnesses reported hearing explosions. Now, these explosions could have been *anything*, right? They could have been oxygen bottles, they could have been aerosol cans, they could have been cleaning fluids for big printers in a printing room, they could have been cans of kerosene reportedly present that were used for generators and heaters, or hey, they *could* have been small charges going off to create a controlled demolition, right? Now with this in mind, I think it would be majorly important to rule this out one hundred percent so that there could be *no* question about it. You don't achieve that by dismissing CD out of hand and not even testing for explosives.

Many witnesses reported hearing explosions, but were any of these explosions loud enough to be demolition charges?

In the WTC collapse videos I have here that have sound, I don't hear a series of loud booms while the Twin Towers are collapsing, just a continuous roar of the collapse itself. Also, there doesn't seem to be any especially loud boom at the beginning of the collapse of WTC 7, either.

At this point, I'm not inclined to believe that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives, although I do think there are plenty of other things about 9/11 that need to be investigated.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. I can't answer that as I wasn't there...

that's something that would have to be asked of the witnesses themselves.

I really have to wonder how loud the explosions would be if the explosives were placed into drilled out holes in the concrete cores as I suggested.

[Diane_nyc]

49. Can demolition charges be muffled so we wouldn't hear them on those WTC collapse videos with sound?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212355">Ghost in the Machine wrote:

40. I can't answer that as I wasn't there...

You weren't there, but we do have plenty of WTC collapse videos, some with sound.

that's something that would have to be asked of the witnesses themselves.

Demolition charges can be heard quite a distance away, so we wouldn't need to ask witnesses. We would just need to review the available WTC collapse videos that include the sounds of the collapses. This can be done by anyone who has ears plus a sufficiently large collection of WTC collapse videos.

I really have to wonder how loud the explosions would be if the explosives were placed into drilled out holes in the concrete cores as I suggested.

That's a good question. I seriously doubt that concrete could muffle the sounds of demolition charges.

I do think that those who believe in the explosive demolition hypothesis should make a point of looking into this question, e.g. by asking an explosives expert. After all, if it does rule out the explosive demolition hypothesis, then those who now believe in that hypothesis should stop pursuing a blind alley and turn their attention, instead, to asking questions about other aspects of what happened on 9/11.

[Realityhack]

53. While you are asking experts

You might want to point out that these demolition charges would probobly be set up a bit diffrently than normal. No weeks of cutting non-key columns, some way of protecting them from a jet impact etc.

I think demolitions experts would disagree with the idea being sound.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Once COULD set up charges diffrently

by not prepping the placement sites, but you would need to use much larger charges...resulting in greater signature (sound, residue, spalling effects).

[Realityhack]

65. I was thinking that in addtion...

this would lead to more chance of all kinds of issues when you slam a frikin jet into them.

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. I agree

that little technicality is never acknowledged by the truth crowd. How detonators, which are sensitive to heat, physical shock, and static electricity would survive in such an instance.

[Diane_nyc]

69. "the truth crowd"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212733">vincent_vega_lives wrote:

that little technicality is never acknowledged by the truth crowd

You mean the CD-of-WTC crowd, apparently. Not everyone in "the truth crowd" believes in CD of the WTC buildings. See http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html">Nicholas Levis's article on different beliefs about 9/11.

[Realityhack]

43. This also assumes that...

what they thought where 'explosions' actually where explosions.

[Diane_nyc]

47. But can we RULE OUT explosive demolition as a possible explanation for the explosive sounds?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212423">Realityhack wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212331">my post about whether the "sounds of explosions" heard by various witnesses were loud enough to be demolition charges:

43. This also assumes that...

what they thought where 'explosions' actually where explosions.

Yes, I've heard the hypothesis that some of the explosive sounds may have been the sound of floors smashing together. Other possible explanations, for some of the explosive sounds, include transformer explosions and the sound of steel warping.

But it's important to consider whether we can rule out the explosive demolition hypothesis, not just whether there are alternative explanations.

If indeed none of the explosive sounds were loud enough to be demolition charges, and if indeed it's not possible to muffle the sound of a demolition charge, then this would seem to rule out explosive demolition as a possibility to be considered.

(It doesn't rule out the possibility of secondary arson, e.g. using thermite. That idea would have to be considered separately.)

[LARED]

48. So tell me, how does one rule out

the explosive demolition hypothesis?

I'd love to see a process to accomplish that goal. I personally don't think it's possible, and even if a process was developed, the vast majority of CT'er's would reject it.

[Diane_nyc]

51. Well, for one thing, you would need to be a lot more patient ....

Please re-read my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212436">But can we RULE OUT explosive demolition as a possible explanation for the explosive sounds?, the one to which you just now replied. See also my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212442">Yes, there have been some very bad arguments against the explosive demolition hypothesis.

[LARED]

52. I don't understand, Do you think that over time a process will

"come into being" that is able to rule out the explosive demolition hypothesis?

What sort of process do you have in mind?

[Realityhack]

54. No however...

If alternate explanations exist, and the sounds are the main basis for a demolitions theory it fails at providing the needed rather extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

There are many theories we can't strictly 'rule out' by but that does not make them particularly valid.

[Diane_nyc]

56. Explosive sounds as evidence

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212502">Realityhack wrote:

If alternate explanations exist, and the sounds are the main basis for a demolitions theory it fails at providing the needed rather extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

I agree with you that, if the loudness of the explosive sounds were not an issue, then the reported sounds would be at best ambiguous as evidence, and that other evidence would be needed to prove explosive demolition. In that case, the explosive sounds would be good evidence against a possible counterclaim (which I've seen some "debunkers" make) that "The WTC collapses couldn't have been an explosive CD because nobody heard explosions." But I agree with you that the explosive sounds would not, by themselves, be strong positive evidence for CD with explosives.

There are many theories we can't strictly 'rule out' by but that does not make them particularly valid.

Agreed, but in some cases it might be worth taking the time to look for more and better evidence for these theories. On the other hand, if it can be shown that CD with explosives is physically impossible (e.g. because there weren't any loud enough explosive sounds), then there's not much point in spending time looking for further evidence for it.

[Realityhack]

66. On what grounds should we even look for that?

Should we look into direct energy weapons too?

I think for such an extraordinary claim to warrant investigation I would like to see SOME evidence that we should bother.

[Diane_nyc]

70. Why look at the WTC demolition hypothesis?

To many people, the idea that the WTC buildings (especially WTC 7) were demolished with explosives does not seem extraordinary. Many people have been instantly convinced, upon seeing http://wtc7.net/videos.html">these videos, that the collapse of WTC 7 must have been a CD. On 9/11/2001, several newscasters remarked that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and/or 7 "looked like" or were "reminiscent of" a CD (though they did not actually claim that these collapses were CD's). And there was quite a bit of speculation, by various people including even a few experts, about "secondary devices" that had possibly been "planted" in the buildings. (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/experts/">See this page for some examples.)

To many people, the idea of CD of the WTC buildings doesn't seem blatantly ridiculous on its face, the way the no-planes claims do, for example.

Since CD of the WTC buildings happens to be something that many people have suspected, it's worth examining this idea just to clear things up, if nothing else.

[Realityhack]

71. I disagree.

I do not think things are worth researching just because a bunch of ordinary people believe them based on little to no research, facts, or analysis.

For example in the case of the towers it might look like a CD except that the 'CD' starts 90 stories up where a jet just crashed into the side of the building and it has been burning for some time.
That may be reminiscent but I see no reason to start off in that direction unless the jet, fires, design issues, etc. fail to account for the collapse.

[Diane_nyc]

73. When, in a (semi) democratic society, is something worth researching?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212250&mesg_id=212829">Realityhack wrote:

I do not think things are worth researching just because a bunch of ordinary people believe them based on little to no research, facts, or analysis.

If we lived in a society ruled by scientist-kings, then perhaps I might agree with you. But we don't.

We live in a semi-democracy. Therefore, popular beliefs of ordinary people do affect public policy. Hence popular beliefs are a matter of public concern and hence worth examining - at least to some extent, though perhaps not as a top research priority.

If the academic world simply disdains popular beliefs as not worth addressing at all, other than just to declare, flatly, "there's no evidence ..." (without having bothered even to look for evidence or counter-evidence), then the most likely result, it seems to me, would be a growing wave of populist anti-intellectualism.

It seems to me that such a wave has already been growing, at least on the Internet. Do you agree?

Anyhow, like it or not, we do live in a society that is supposed to be accountable to the general public, not just to scientists. Voters are not required to be scientifically literate or otherwise well-educated.

For example in the case of the towers it might look like a CD except that the 'CD' starts 90 stories up where a jet just crashed into the side of the building and it has been burning for some time. That may be reminiscent but I see no reason to start off in that direction unless the jet, fires, design issues, etc. fail to account for the collapse.

I agree with you that the above makes the "CD" hypothesis unnecessary. But this doesn't, in and of itself, rule out the possibility that there might have been "secondary devices ... planted" in the buildings, perhaps as part of a deliberately redundant attack. At the present time, I don't think the latter possibility is especially likely either, but, because a growing number of people do believe it, some passionately so, it's a matter worth clearing up.

(I don't think it would be necessary to investigate the no-planes hypothesis, which, to most ordinary people, really is blatantly loony in a way that the idea of explosive demolition isn't. Only a very tiny though fanatical fringe believes in no-planes claims, it seems to me.)

[Grateful for Hope]

74. I agree with you on this, Diane

On the other hand, I think that far too much energy has been expended on this topic. And, since the "evidence" no longer exists (except in videos), I think it would be very difficult to prove.

I know that some who pursue this topic think that, if, at least for WTC7, it could be proven that it's collapse was a CD, then, this could at least prove that there was some complicity behind 9/11.

I think, short of a credible whistle-blower, we will never know for sure what brought down WTC7.

This does not negate the need for further investigation.

[wildbilln864]

27. "We have an adequate model of how the buildings collapsed. "

No we don't!

"I think I CAN say that hitting a building with a jetliner is likely to fuck up your demolition plan more than a bit. "
I think I CAN say you're wrong here too.
Alas we disagree.


Investigate 911!!

[Realityhack]

31. So Bill tell us...

How would you plant the explosives in the building so that a jetliner crashing into it would not disrupt the charges or triggering mechanisms.
don't forget to allow for an uncontrolled blaze for a while after the impacts.

[wildbilln864]

35. well, Not sure but....

If I used thermit. The jetfuel would not ignite it. Of course I'd use a combination of compounds though.

[Realityhack]

55. Bill

Without some details on this issue I think it represents a serious flaw in the CD conjecture.

Also as far as I know therminte is not used in normal CD. It's not exactly controlled at that point so a different name would be a good idea. The key issue this raises is how would you know that the added thermite would bring about total collapse as you could not time the individual failures to coincide.

[hack89]

67. Why wouldn't the jet fuel ingnite it? nt

[Realityhack]

72. I think...

Bill is referring to the rather high temperature required to ignite raw thermite.
I don't think he has indicated what it would do to whatever he plans on using to ignite the thermite (ie set that off or destroy it).

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. Concrete?

1st what concrete are you drilling into? The structural components of the WTC were steel box columns, and perimeter columns.

[wildbilln864]

24. I think you raise very good points.

That 4th item is the funnyest of all. Believing that it's not possible because buildings can only be demolished from the bottom up is so laughable! :hi:
keep up the good work ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. Thanks wildbill....

I don't know man, maybe they just don't understand the art of criminal deception: making something look like it's something else.

They also don't understand the "shock & awe" value of it. What gains more support for their war? Planes hit 3 buildings and one crashes into a field. Buildings don't collapse. What's that, 600 dead? Now... planes crash into buildings, buildings collapse, 3000 dead, symbols of America wiped out, gone forever. Which builds more support for war?

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

36. Once again spot on!

No way I'm accepting those asshole's(da gubment) words for what happened in light of all the suspicious circumstances without a thorough and independant investigation. Or anybody connected with them. Call me crazy.

[Diane_nyc]

50. Yes, there have been some very bad arguments against the explosive demolition hypothesis

People on both sides of the debate have used blatantly fallacious arguments. Even some experts have expressed themselves very poorly and have used badly constructed arguments. (See, for example, http://911research.com/reviews/blanchard/index.html">Jim Hoffman's critique of Protec's attempt to refute the WTC demolition idea.) And, of course, too many "debunkers" don't even bother to argue their case at all, relying instead on ad hominems, arguments from authority, straw men, and guilt by association. (See the JREF forum for many examples.)

However, after careful study of many arguments by the more articulate people on both sides, I've found that all the arguments for the explosive demolition hypothesis that I've encountered so far are either incorrect or incomplete. Even when I myself was inclined to believe in the demolition hypothesis, at least for WTC 7, I recognized that most of the arguments for demolition were weak, and I believed that only a few of them were correct. (For a discussion of many of the arguments, see my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/demolition-of-wtc-lets-not-overstate-the-case-please/">Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please, written back on November 20, 2007, when I still believed in the demolition hypothesis at least for WTC 7.)

It would be nice if all who participated in discussions on this matter could do so with the aim of patiently seeking the truth, neither clinging dogmatically to the demolition hypothesis nor impatient to dismiss it out of hand.

In any case, whether or not WTC 1, 2, and/or 7 were demolished with explosives, it does seem that most of us can agree (judging by the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211181&mesg_id=211181">poll taken here) that there are plenty of other unanswered questions about 9/11, for which we need a new investigation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. New investigation

care to recommend a make up of a panel?

[T Monk]

58. criminal investigators and no one but criminal investigators

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. does it matter what political party they belong to?

What agency? Federal investigators? International? Private? State or local?

No structural engineering experts?

Does the FBI count?

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

[T Monk]

63. nope although there's only one party these days anyone w/ a spotless record

and crime solving experience to match would do. It may be prudent
to nominate or accept applications from a proper ratio of disciplines (arson, fiduciary, forensics, etc) as well as a cross section of people from different parts of the country. One of Halloran's guys from Fan Fran for example, maybe one of LAPD's shiny new pennies, maybe a tough old louie from NYPD. I myself if I were
making selections would try to avoid blatantly politicized agencies like the Bureau and private police companies though I wouldn't totally rule anyone out
as long as they don't personally have dirt on their
resumes or in their jackets. No one but criminal investigators as I said but structural engineers and anyone else with expert knowledge should be available for questioning. First thing the panel should do is determine whether the acts were criminal or political
in nature.