WTC Not a Demolition

[fleetmouse]

a film

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

Watch the first five or ten minutes.

[fleetmouse]

Oh, and here is the footage referenced in the tinyurl link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ity+church

[URBILD]

a film

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

Watch the first five or ten minutes.

Well, I watched abouth 3/4 of the video. I've already seen many of these so-called "debunking" points, as well as rebuttals debunking the so called debunking points...

I'll reply later, if you want my 2 cents, ...

[fleetmouse]

Hurry up, because I want to debunk your rebuttals.

And in the meantime, interested parties are encouraged to visit the JREF forum's Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[fleetmouse]

Good thread here on fire and building collapse, too.

I've mentioned this before, but ....

Back at the start of my 9/11 interest I had lengthy PM conversations with a retired UK fire service technician. He cleared up a lot of misunderstandings I had about building fires.

Along the way he described the problem of fires in the huge UK cotton millsWP. Early mills had floors with wooden beams, wooden floors and lath+plaster ceilings, which proved a terrible fire risk. Later mills had steel beams with concrete floors, a great improvement in this respect as well as being able to support heavier equipment.

Except - major fires now posed a new risk. The long steel floor beams were - predictably - known to expand and push the (brick) walls outwards, creating the possibility of sudden and catastrophic major collapse. This did indeed happen at times, and the prospect scared the fire teams poopless it seems.

So, no, the whole 'thermal expansion' thing is an old and well-recognised problem in building fires.

and

Some twoofers on the Norwegian forum I frequent, keeps comparing the Windsor Tower building in Madrid, that burned for hours and hours and didn`t collapse. I cant get them to understand that that building was nothing like the WTC; it had two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. In addition the last 3 years it had been installed with; fire protection to the perimeter steel columns using a boarding system, fire protection to the internal steel beams using a spray protection, a sprinkler system and a new aluminium cladding system.

This makes the Windsor tower vastly different from the WTC, but this is a fact that the twoofers completely choses to ignore. Cause it does not fit into their theory.

For me its like comparing apples to pineapples. /twoofer logic they are the same cause they both contain the letters "apple", right??/twoofer logic end.

[met]

This discussion could be worth watching....

Fleeet, interesting points - some of 'em - in that video. Hopefully u guys can keep this one going .... vaguely interested minds want to know....

[URBILD]

a film http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
Watch the first five or ten minutes.

Watch 5 or 10 minutes....just enough to realize that Not a Demolition is an epic failure....

A film created by a die-hard apologist of the official narrative for those with unabashed contempt for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

No doubt, those who post regularly on the James Randi Educational Forums,( where “education” amounts to heaping abuse and scorn on those who don’t think like the herd ) will see it as a triumph. The propagandistic approach, petty insults, straw men, are all there,...

Only "basement-dwelling crackpots" dare challenge the 9/11 narrative put out by agencies of the Bush administration...

From the get-go, the film indulges a tired old spin: all the “experts” are on the side of the official 9/11 narrative, while those who support an alternative to the official 9/11 account are “conspiricists”. Never mind the fact that accepting the official narrative means also accepting a conspiracy theory,...or that there are experts in the relevant fields (e.g., physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, etc.) who support an alternative to the official narrative,..or that a number of the experts listed do not totally agree with the official narrative.

While the film is bogged down in its attempt to portray 9/11 truthers' as either deceitful or mentally challenged "basement dwellers",... underneath all of the horse manure, there may be some superficially plausible arguments against the demolition hypothesis: e.g., the absence of pre-collapse squibs or audible detonation, confusion of testimony reporting. But all these arguments fail under closer scrutiny....(to be continued)

[URBILD]

One argument for the demolition hypothesis is that eyewitness testimony and video evidence show high velocity ejection of debris (suggestive of demolition squibs) coming out of floors before they collapsed. Some of these ejections occurred as much as twenty to thirty floors beneath the collapse front.

The film argues, by contrast, that the demolition hypothesis is "absurd" because there were no such ejections before the collapse of the building began...and there are a few seconds of video that, believe it or not, are supposed to demonstrate the absence of high velocity ejections...

Problem is, there is video evidence of squibs before the collapse of the towers. Mark Stevens, the creator of the film, was either unaware of this fact or was being deceitful in his presentation of the audiovisual evidence. In either case, Steven's first argument falls flat on its face... Stevens then makes a big deal about the inward bowing of the South Tower before the initiation of collapse, as if this also proves the "absurdity" of any demolition scenario. Here, Stevens assumes falsely that a covert demolition would be engineered in the exact same fashion as a traditional or conventional demolition that was designed according to standard saftey regulations. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, however, the objective would be to take out the top of the towers so as to make explosive action less evident to outside onlookers. IOW, it would have been engineered to make it look like jet planes were the cause of collapse. In this scenario, the inward bowing of the peramiter columns would be an essential element of initiating collapse.

Steven's next argument is equally lame. From a select sampling of audiovisual evidence, Stevens argues that the absence of audible sounds of detonation proves the absurdity of the demolition hypothesis. He then shows a number of clips of various demolitions where the sound of detonation can be heard from as far as two miles away. The implication here is that if there were explosions at the WTC, they would have been so loud so that they would be unmistakably detected by any audiovisual recording. Trouble is, Stevens is apparently ignorant of the fact that the actual sound of an explosion does not define an explosive event. More importantly, thermite controlled demolition, though more powerful, would actually make less noise than a demolition controlled by conventional explosives....

To be continued....Stevens' seriously flawed account of the testimonial evidence for explosives.

[fleetmouse]

Mark Stevens, the creator of the film, was either unaware of this fact or was being deceitful in his presentation of the audiovisual evidence. In either case, Steven's first argument falls flat on its face... Stevens then makes a big deal about the inward bowing of the South Tower before the initiation of collapse, as if this also proves the "absurdity" of any demolition scenario. Here, Stevens assumes falsely that a covert demolition would be engineered in the exact same fashion as a traditional or conventional demolition that was designed according to standard saftey regulations. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, however, the objective would be to take out the top of the towers so as to make explosive action less evident to outside onlookers. IOW, it would have been engineered to make it look like jet planes were the cause of collapse. In this scenario, the inward bowing of the peramiter columns would be an essential element of initiating collapse.

Right, so any evidence supporting jet planes and fires causing the collapse is actually evidence of the ingenious conspiracy to make you think that jet planes and fires caused the collapse. Deliciously diabolical.

It's just like how the devil plants fake fossils to undermine young earth creationism!

More importantly, thermite controlled demolition, though more powerful, would actually make less noise than a demolition controlled by conventional explosives....

Does it bother you at all that this is pure fabrication on your part? I mean, I might say that witchcraft is more powerful and quieter than conventional explosives - does that mean that witchcraft brought down the towers?

[met]

I think the problem,fleet, is that the buildings - all 3 of them - fell pretty much straight down, pretty much perfectly symmetrically, minimizing collateral damage, and each one looks, if not sounds, just like a controlled demolition. That's the prima facie Truther case. SO.... IF you GONNA covertly blow up a building, are you gonna use just conventionally loud explosives? Unless you have to? No. Of course you're not. So... is there some other substance could be used that's quieter? Oh yes, there's thermite, of which there was evidence amongst the WTC ruins.

These are the assumptions/questions behind URB'ies responses and conjectures.

... Are you two are just talking past each other?