Why there were bombs planted at the WTC towers--

[spooked911]

because it is the ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THE UNPRECEDENTED COLLAPSES THAT OCCURRED THERE.

Let's get real.

Demolition by pre-planted charges is essentially a proven fact.

There is only one reason to not believe demolition:
you are in complete denial about 9/11


The only reason demolition we don't have iron-clad proof of demolition:
we haven't seen any videos or pictures of the perps planting the charges

for evidence see:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. I've always thought that altering the air quality results

was covering up more than just asbestos. certain chemical componants in that dust would pretty much put this to bed for good.

[hack89]

6. Here is a spectral analysis of the WTC dust ..

done by a non-government entity to support insurance litigation. There is nothing here to indicate explosives.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[Christophera]

2. Bombs And Demolition NOT The Same-Get It Straight, Be Comprehensive

don't help the perpetrators by adding to the confusion.

Bombs do NOT look like what we saw.

Here is a thread that actually uses evidence with logic in a comprehensive manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x72575

[spooked911]

3. you're right-- bombs and demolition aren't the same

mostly I was countering that thread that said there were NO BOMBS

[Christophera]

11. Yes, Counter The Bomb Theory/Error. Near Continous EXPL. To Ground

are actually MORE than demolition. Seriously, controlled demolition does not pulverize everything. It leaves managable chunks.

If demolitions experts could get building to do that they would. It is too mch work drilling all the holes that need to be drilled and if you fasten and tamp the charges to the outside of the walls larger, heavier particulate flys out way too far for safety.

What we saw was only possible within very narrow conditions.

[greyl]

5. Comprehensive use of evidence and logic? No.

That thread is only stating a conclusion. Nothing comprehensive about it.

"Bombs only blow holes in things as big as the towers."

I'm not positive what you mean by that, but I don't think "bombs only blow holes in things as big as the towers" is supported by any logic in that thread. It's just a statement of a conclusion.

"What we see above was continuous from top to bottom, as shown below."

Yeah, the building collapsed under its own weight and fell down. As we'd expect.

"What we saw was caused by a precision series of high speed detonations."

That's an extreme conclusion with zero logic offered to support it.

"All the way down. Continuous detonations."

All the way down. Accelerating mass and gravity. Just as one would expect.

"don't help the perpetrators by adding to the confusion."

Hey, I agree with that! :)

[Christophera]

10. How Much Do You Know About High Explosives And COG. Distortions

I am ADAPTING the list of cognitive distortions created by cognitive therapists for use in showing how cognitive dissonance can compel reactive distortions upon dissonant perception.

I said.
"Bombs only blow holes in things as big as the towers."

You said.

Comprehensive use of evidence and logic? No.
Posted by greyl

That thread is only stating a conclusion. Nothing comprehensive about it.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

Check the use of distortions in what you've written with,

“That thread is only stating a conclusion.”

"Nothing comprehensive about it".

We all distort but there are 2 kinds, logical and acceptable, not logical and not acceptable.

The fact is that the only bomb that could have taken the tower to the ground would also take out 6 other BLOCKS of buildings and would look nothing like what we saw. If you don’t recognize that, you don’t know enough to responsibly conduct this discussion.

Posted by greyl

I'm not positive what you mean by that, but I don't think "bombs only blow holes in things as big as the towers" is supported by any logic in that thread. It's just a statement of a conclusion.

You are correct, I do not support the statement with logic there, but I was waiting for some one to post in a way that required it in answer. Also it is a logical conclusion, not JUST a conclusion. You are distorting, minimizing. Curiously, the post needing the logic is here and not in the thread where the statement originated.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

I said,

"What we see above was continuous from top to bottom, as shown below."

Posted by greyl

Yeah, the building collapsed under its own weight and fell down. As we'd expect.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

The above is a veiled and convoluted “should” statement. I would expect the top of the tower to fall off and NO MORE, if the plane impacts were that severe. They were not.

I said,

"What we saw was caused by a precision series of high speed detonations."

That's an extreme conclusion with zero logic offered to support it.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

Above is an instance of labeling with the word “extreme”. The conclusion is independently logical and is completely supported by ANY series of still photos and all video. Firefighters are on video tape mimicking a 75 millisecond delay in their descriptions of the towers demolition in an informal debriefing by the battalion chief in the firehouse.

I said,

"All the way down. Continuous detonations."

All the way down. Accelerating mass and gravity. Just as one would expect.

The above ignores the fact that if it is accelerating it is NOT contacting and further crushing what is underneath it, which takes time, if it could happen under these conditions which it cannot. The statement ignores the time and energy needed to pulverize everything except steel. It ignores the facts of the evidence.

I said,

"don't help the perpetrators by adding to the confusion."

Hey, I agree with that! :)

So, .............. I hope you understand that I’m not trying to piss you off, I’m trying to limit the confusion. I do have quite a bit of experience with steel, concrete and also some with high explosives.

Fifty satchel charges, bombs, on the same floor ringing the core could have cut the tower in half, wherein part would have toppled, and that is what bombs can do. That would have been obvious, we would have known, media would have known. Done deal.

This is different. This looked impossible and really is except for a VERY narrow set of circumstances. No way did those include simple bombs.

[Twist_U_Up]

19. Great Post Christophera

I wanted to tune in to let you know your post didn't go un-noticed.
Out of all the posts Ive seen in this forum the last few days, yours are the most thorough and logical in my opinion.

I look forward to more.

I have been an Ironworker for some 20 years I have worked on everything from nucular reactors to basic bridge decks to your local conveince stores ,I've tied rebar, connected steel,bolted up,laid decking,shot deck studs,welded, torched,rigged huge tanks for placement,post tension work etc.etc.

I might not be the most articulate of person but what I do have is a knowledge of how things are put together and taken apart and even fall apart.

I know in my heart and my head that these buildings did not fall because of fire or voids in that shell. Its the very first thing I thought of when I saw the towers come down.

I was never a political person until 9-11 hell I didnt even pay attention I was too busy raising my family . 9/11 changed everything and I am just now coming to the sad reality that our govt. has been hijacked by some very evil people.

So I will continue to educate myself ,my family and anyone else I come into contact with and your knowledge just reaffirmed those sad facts for me but very resourceful.

Thanks

[greyl]

21. As I politely suggested before,

I'm not sure you're using that list of personality disorder traits properly. To avoid using clinical language : I don't think you understand them.
It'd be more polite of you to point out logical errors your opponents commit than to accuse them of displaying personality disorders, ya know? ;)

But anyway, everyone can read your post and my reply.
You haven't created some alternate reality in this last post of yours - not with my understanding of what comprehensive and logical mean.

When you say "it's a logical conclusion, not JUST a conclusion" you sure aren't referring to the post I was referring to. You may have reached your conclusions using logic, but you failed to include any logic in the post that you advertised as "logical and comprehensive".


"So, .............. I hope you understand that I’m not trying to piss you off, I’m trying to limit the confusion. I do have quite a bit of experience with steel, concrete and also some with high explosives."

Yes, I've seen many of your posts in several non-DU forums while doing my research.
Don't worry about pissing me off.

[Christophera]

24. Polite Disorders Still Do Not The Truth Make, Or, ........... Use Evidence

To Know Truth.

And only through evidence will we find it.

My post here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x72575

uses evidence in an advanced, dynamic presentation tailored for those experienced with the physical properties of the events discussed and it eliminates the possibility of simple "bombs" being used. Explosives yes, many of them yes, highly sophisticated delay and detonation systems yes. Not just bombs.

"Bombs" itself is a generalization. Dumbed down America might apply that to what happenned on 9-11 at the WTC, but I can't and I'll say so and logically, comprehensively support that with evidence.

As far as my uses of the list of cognitive distortions. If you think I don't understand them, then you might think you understand them better, or you just don't know. If that is the case, for you to say "think" is in itself a distortion; as if you've shown that you have related knowledge and it disproves my uses. You haven't shown that.
To prove that you understand them better, use them to expose my distortions. I'm distorting too but I'm trying to do something good with the distortions and I know what it is, it is acceptable. Whereas using distortions to dismiss evidence that fully supports assertions is not.

My uses of the cognitive distortions list is appropriately extrapolated to analyze a persons language to determine how they might be unconsciously manipulating (their own or anothers) perceptions by creating or altering attitudes in a social setting.

Good, you've seen my act before and are somewhat inurred to my approach and won't get too bent like some at other forumns. Which ones did you find my posts on?

[greyl]

27. Ok. nt

[sabbat hunter]

4. demolition/bombs

by believing there had to be bombs/demolitions planted in the WTC you are also assuming the * regime is competant enough to pull off such a scheme.

lets face it we currently have THE most incompetant corrupt regime in the history of our country. they simply arent competant enough to have pulled off such a large scale action. name one thing this adminstration has done with competance. :)

[JackRiddler]

9. your strawmen

Who said the "Bush regime" "did" 9/11? This is an extreme simplification. It's like saying the Taliban did 9/11 (when in fact it was, according to the official story, a cell of terrorists harbored by the Taliban regime, who themselves were caught by surprise).

No one claims Bush did anything except follow his instructions to sit tight in that classroom until it was over. Ditto other known regime members. The question is whether their contractors are competent.

I see that the "incompetence" of the Bush regime is now the de rigeur excuse for not having to actually think with regard to 9/11. They're so stupid, so they couldn't have pulled it off, and we don't even have to examine the facts.

If the Bush people are so incompetent, how is it that so far they got everything they wanted, generally with the support of Democrats?

There is no contradiction in an "incompetent" regime or government harboring a team of operatives who are "competent" (if that's what you want to call it) in pulling off 9/11.

Of course, the 9/11 op left a host of loose ends, and the perps surely depended on the knowledge in advance that the unwitting regime members would never question a simple Bin Ladin theory, and that the utterly corrupt corporate media apparatus would serve as a reliable transmission belt and ignore any anomalies, and that (on the level of individual discourse) self-appointed obscurantists like yourself would do the job of muddying the waters with strawmen and innuendao, making factual discussion difficult.

Speaking of competence, and just to adopt your nonsensical logic, what do you think about the time Atta and Shehhi couldn't get their Cessna to start, at which point they abandoned it on the runway queue at Opa Locka Airport, walking away without even telling the airport authorities. Wow, if they can't even get a Cessna to start...

[Christophera]

12. Regime=Puppets, They Read Goat Stories On Camera Not Set Explosives

or even know that explosives are set. They respond as instructed when triggered by conditions.

You are correct. The regime did not set the explosive or detonate them. Those controlling the regime did.

This administration has lied with great effect, if not competenc.e

[sabbat hunter]

13. who do you think

are the puppet masters? this is a very interesting line of thinking. i dont know if they are literally controlled as in post hypnotic suggestions, but a very interesting theory. would like to know more about it.

[Christophera]

14. Will You Still Want To Know The Truth After You Learn It Is Something You

Don't Want To Know?

Here is a site that can give you the background psycholgy does have but will not use. It is one long chain, just keep reading, there is a site map at the end. David Blaine is in there to show how the knowledge might be used.

http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/

[Twist_U_Up]

20. stupid like a fox

[hack89]

7. If they are the only explanations ..

why are there academic and industry experts willing to put their professional reputations on the line by advancing theories that don't include explosions?

[JackRiddler]

8. ha ha ha

So the way to risk your career is to NOT construct an explosive demolition hypothesis for the WTC.

Right.

Nobody risks their career by coming up with an (appropriately hedged and qualified) hypothesis of how the Towers might have collapsed due to plane hits and fire. Even if this is ultimately disproved by consensus, no one will be sanctioned for it. Those who speculate in the direction of explosives are the ones risking their careers.

(Shouldn't there be a limit of how many strawmen any given poster should be allowed to throw around per month?)

[hack89]

15. If there was a limit,

this board would be shut down!

The truth is the truth - if Dr Jones and his merry band of researchers are so sure of their science why haven't they submitted anything for publication and peer review? Its only been four years now - how long does it take to do experiments and write a paper?

[JackRiddler]

16. You're off on another point...

You said people would "risk their reputations" by devising spontaneous collapse hypotheses if these turn out untrue, and you know that's bullshit. They run no risk whatsoever, not even if there is an eventual consensus that bombs were used. In that case, no one will hold their mistake against them.

The likes of Jones are risking their careers by questioning the dominant view on a matter that is central to the nation's present cultural identity.

Meanwhile, you switch to claiming Jones hasn't submitted for peer review.

Ahem.

His paper is published on the Web. His presentation is delivered at other universities. His paper is about to be published in a scholarly volume.

It's widely available and challenging other scientists to do their best to debunk. So how is this not available for peer review?

I suppose the real question is, where are the peers?

[Clarkent]

22. Jones

I don't post much, but I thought I would add a few things on professor Jones.

I don't believe Jones paper will make it past a decent peer review for a mainstream science journal in its present form.
His paper has very little original research. He paper seems filled with misquotations and incorrect assumptions. Links to video that doesn't support his claims. A white high contrast photo even appears to have been manipulated to blow out the whites.


Some examples of Jones many problems:

1. Jones states: ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.) The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

Yet what Jones doesn't seem to realize (but he should) is that the steel members were no where near that temp.
The steel is even mentioned elsewere in his (Jones) OWN paper.
I can't understand how Jones doesn't seem to realize this. He could of also simply e-mailed Barnett to get his answer.

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
"These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850∞C."
"A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940∞C."



2. Jones states
Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.

Yet watching the building fall doesn't seem to support his claims at all.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi


3. Another is his use of Kevin Ryan as some sort of expert. Yet what Jones doesn't tell you is Kevin Ryan was a Site Manager from Underwriters Lab as a WATER TESTER for UL's Environmental Health Laboratory. He has NOTHING to do with certifing the steel components. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041119123941493
Why on earth is Jones so dishonest here?

4. His misquotes and strongly edits Eager, FEMA, Cachia, Manning
Just hunt down the original sources to see how he rewrote or (very) selectively edited them.

a. Jones states: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse <“official theory”> remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis (fire/damage-caused collapse) has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

Now when you read track down the full quote its says "Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The best hypothesis seems to be refering to the "total diesel fuel" not the Jones added (fire/damage-caused collapse).

b. If Eagers quotes were so great why did Jones edit out Eagers very next paragraph.

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

c. For Bill Manning he had to edit his quotes so strongly he even changed and replace a word from from "theory to result"
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html
If Manning quotes were so damning why did Jones misrepresent his claims?


5. See the photo in his (Jones) article by Rob Miller of the "White blobs". Yet if the photo made such a strong case why did he (or someone else) INCREASE the contrast so strongly from the original as seen here.



I would also suggest other read up on some of his other "supporting" claims such as Lane and Lamont.

To me I find it hard to believe these are just honest mistakes in his research.

As a side note I would also like to add:

Jones doesn't even seem to realize the likely cause of the sulfer is the gyp wallboard dust and or heavy heating oils, such as No. 6 fuel oil. He also doesn't seem to realize the tremendous amount of fuel in the rubble.
A quote from the article
It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed. Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
http--www.epa.gov-epaoswer-osw-meeting-pdf02-kahnp.pdf.webloc

[Christophera]

17. Unreasonable Social Fears-We Gotta' Get Over This Crap

Afraid of the secret government, afraid of social pressure, afraid of looking radical, afraid of not making money.

[hack89]

18. You are right ...

They could be punished like Dr Jones and his merry band! :eyes:

Why is it that there are plenty of scientist willing to take on the government on issues like the environment, depleted uranium and the like? Why aren't they punished? Why are members of the CIA and NSA not intimidated into silence? Don't they effectively demonstrate the ability to anonymously attack the president and the government?

[pauldp]

23. Because they pulled all the footage of 7 and destroyed the evidence.

And the 911 commission did not mention it.
How unusual was the collapse of 7?
Unprecedented, as you said. Never happened in the history of the world.

An unprecedented collapse would get studied not buried.

[Christophera]

25. WTC 7 Falls Like A Curtain OnStage, Ready For Act Two?

Is the intermission over?

[Twist_U_Up]

26. From the bottom up nm