ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Observation is not conspiracy

There is room for a lot of discussion and debate concerning what actually happened 15 years ago in New York City. But there is no room to argue that the collapse of WTC7 was anything but a controlled demolition, despite Sillon Bono's attempt to argue otherwise.
I discussed the way the towers collapsed with other people at the time who also had considerable "understanding in structural mechanics" and everybody agreed that at least the twin towers didn't look "uncharacteristic".

I haven't heard any video or collection of witness say anything about hearing explosives going off when the WTC7 went down.

You can believe what you want, I'm not telling you to do otherwise, show me links where the explosions can be heard.

As I said, from the angles where it was filmed the WTC7 building collapse "looks" like an intentional controlled demolition.

"Looks" it is not the same as "it was".

We all have a hunch that the entire 9/11 is nowhere near clear, but to make assertions like a building was purposely demolished using explosives in just a few hours of preparation is a bit too much.

Controlled demolition of a building that size requires a hell of lot of preparation, and (((very loud explosives))).
First, the National Institute of Standards and Technology already implicitly admitted that WTC7 was demolisehed in their report which describes how the building collapse featured 2.25 seconds of freefall with no internal structural resistance.

Free fall acceleration for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft). Free fall acceleration means that there was no resistance encountered while the top of the building when through the space where 8 floors of reinforced concrete stood just seconds before. We are talking about a building with had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. And yet, 8 floors of that somehow disappeared almost instantly. If you read the full report, you will see that NIST does admit this, but never recognizes the implications of this fact. In fact, under a separate section entitled “HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS” NIST specifically excludes any controlled demolition based on the completely wrong assumptions that no blasts were heard (they were, of course). 

Second, there were plenty of explosions reported. You can even hear them yourself on the various videos from the day. You can hear the firemen talk about them. If you haven't heard them, or heard the testimony of eyewitnesses talking about them., you obviously haven't even gone to the trouble of a single Google search for them.

There. there is no doubt about what happened to WTC-7 whatsoever. It was intentionally demolished with preset explosives.

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it..."

In addition to hearing the sound of the explosions, you can also hear firefighters and police telling each other to move back because the building is going to be blown. This was live on CNN. It's one thing to be skeptical, it is another to deny a) eyewitnesses, b) video evidence, c) physics, and d) logic.

Labels: ,

385 Comments:

1 – 200 of 385 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 11:39 AM  

What did building 7 contain?

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 11:40 AM  

The Enron books that would have put Cheney in prison.

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 11:41 AM  

It was a REALLY lucky break for Cheney, because that was basically the end of the Enron case.

Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 11:42 AM  

*lucky*

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 11:43 AM  

Of course. What are you, a conspiracy nut?

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 12, 2016 11:44 AM  

No amount of evidence will matter to those that have believed the "official story" for 15 years.
Case-in-point, most people believe that Flight 93 just crashed because the passengers were fighting the terrorists.

Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 11:45 AM  

(((conspiracy)))

Blogger Jack Ward September 12, 2016 11:45 AM  

If the radios, firefighters and police, were saying WTC7 was going to be blown, then, did they have time to set demo charges after the main attack. If so, who made the decision to demo 7. Why? Were they covering up something too sensitive to see the light of day? Did someone go in and see charges set to blow and got out to warn everyone?
Many questions, few answers, if any.

Anonymous Jared September 12, 2016 11:45 AM  

Assuming WTC7 was a controlled demolition (a thing I am not qualified to judge) but that the towers were not (I can actually judge that), what would be the underlying theory/explanation about the whole thing?

Not trying to troll, just trying to understand what the thought is. (I have my own theories, but they don't really count.)

Blogger Achilles September 12, 2016 11:46 AM  

Well you changed my mind on free trade and stubborn like an old mule. So regarding WTC7... cui bono?

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 11:49 AM  

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_sec.jpg

Sometimes a guy just catches a break, that's all.

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 11:49 AM  

Frankly I think it was extremely disrespectful of the CIA to fly those planes into those buildings on Bear Bryant's Birthday.

Anonymous Steve September 12, 2016 11:51 AM  

The Enron books that would have put Cheney in prison.

That would be amazingly fast work tho?

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 11:52 AM  

Also... does anyone know how many actual Americans died on 9-11? Best I can tell it was most just a bunch of new yorkers.

Anonymous JamesV September 12, 2016 11:55 AM  

They didn't say "about to be blown" in that video, they said "about to blow up". I don't know the common slang for NY but I've commonly heard "blow up" to mean "go to shit" or similar. Those two phrases can have very different connotations.

Anonymous JI September 12, 2016 11:56 AM  

Good way to collect insurance money.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 11:57 AM  

Yeah, right, the words of low level guys on the ground, who was totally not subject to the "fog of war", are clearly definitive, and a building falling apart does so silently until the end. And it's been psychic powers, not thermal expansion, that was the key to my opening the lids of pickle jars by first heating them with hot water.

Vox "My College Education Was a Complete Waste of Time" Day, you'd be a lot more convincing to those of us in the STEM world* who you hold in such disdain if you stuck to your areas of expertise when you make such definitive statements.

BTW, how is [redacted] coming along?

*You know, part of the team of people who keep this modern civilization going, at least for the time being....

Anonymous anon123 September 12, 2016 11:59 AM  

Cue ominous Darth Vader music...

Anonymous Tom September 12, 2016 12:03 PM  

@17

U mad, bro?

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 12:03 PM  

@14 Also... does anyone know how many actual Americans died on 9-11? Best I can tell it was most just a bunch of new yorkers.

Way to troll.

Blogger Cory S September 12, 2016 12:05 PM  

Thought this was interesting from the main WTC7 wiki page:

"The collapse of the old 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires.[41"

Serious question - couldn't the explosions within the building be due to the fire hitting gas pockets or other flammable vapors or material?

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:05 PM  

Yeah, right, the words of low level guys on the ground, who was totally not subject to the "fog of war", are clearly definitive, and a building falling apart does so silently until the end.

If you'd read more about it, instead of finally listening to a single video, you'd know they were relaying a message they'd been TOLD.

BTW, how is [redacted] coming along?

We're good to go. Just adding one more feature and then we'll announce later this month. We'll have a Closed Brainstorm about it Wednesday; sending out the invites tonight.

Blogger DrAndroSF September 12, 2016 12:07 PM  

Hey, VD. I think FB is blocking you. I tried to share two of your stories just now and got a message saying their security systems had blocked it.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros September 12, 2016 12:09 PM  

"Also... does anyone know how many actual Americans died on 9-11? Best I can tell it was most just a bunch of new yorkers."

There were also plenty of tourists. However, deliberately choosing to visit New York City without any form of coercion may be the tourism equivalent of coal-burning.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 12:10 PM  

@19 Tom:

@17

U mad, bro?


Why, yes, yes I am. A man can, without provocation, insult and disrespect you only so many times before you also respond in anger.

I believe there's even a case study of such a phenomena, but perhaps one big difference between our host and myself is that I'm culturally Southern and have a shorter fuze.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 12, 2016 12:14 PM  

@14:

We lost some decent folks at the Pentagon.

Anonymous Jake September 12, 2016 12:14 PM  

Don't see how wtc 7 could have been rigged up the day of. But then, don't know why anyone is making the assumption it couldn't have been setup in advance.

Blogger Alexamenos September 12, 2016 12:16 PM  

You're crazy if you think 9-11 was a conspiracy. We all know this was a plan devised in secret by a shadowy group of Arabs, who pulled it off covertly avoiding detection for the most part until it was a done deal.

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 12:16 PM  

"Way to troll."

absolutely. But anyone that's been to New York can look at that comment and know exactly what I meant.

Blogger SemiSpook37 September 12, 2016 12:18 PM  

I seem to recall seeing somewhere where there was a plan (apparently) to shutter and demo WTC 7 aside from the plane strikes on the Twin Towers (i.e. they were already going to shut it down and demo it, the attacks just sped up that process significantly). I mean, we can discuss ad nauseum as to the more clandestine influences of that day, sure, but I always thought that was an interesting tidbit of information, to be honest. Maybe it's just me.

Anonymous ZhukovG September 12, 2016 12:19 PM  

Would six hours be enough time to set up a mostly controlled demolition?

While I think the government may have known the attack was coming, I have wondered if there was never any expectation that any building would collapse. The towers were designed to take a direct hit from an airliner.

But, and I know this never happens in New York, suppose some contractor used substandard materials and bribed city officials to look the other way? Suppose that when the twin towers fell, someone realized that the damage to 7 could implicate important people. Maybe that's why the scrap was shipped to China so quickly.

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 12:22 PM  

"Why, yes, yes I am. A man can, without provocation, insult and disrespect you only so many times before you also respond in anger."

how is a post about building 7 insulting to you and disrespectful to you?

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 12:23 PM  

@30

They also had plans to decommission the first four reactors at Fukushima before that tsunami hit. The tsunami sped up the process significantly. Notice only the first four reactors were actually damaged. Five and Six -- the new ones which TEPCO planned to keep online -- survived.

I find that very interesting and a bit too coincidental.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 12:23 PM  

@22 VD:

Yeah, right, the words of low level guys on the ground, who were totally not subject to the "fog of war", are clearly definitive, and a building falling apart does so silently until the end.

If you'd read more about it, instead of finally listening to a single video, you'd know they were relaying a message they'd been TOLD.


A message that was also totally not subject to the "fog of war."

Try again. Plus There You Go Again, assuming I haven't read up on the subject.

This thesis also has some serious problems in Occam's Razor Land. Either those explosives were planted before the planes crashed into WTCs 1 and 2, which would be quite amazing, or some people with knowledge of the building's structure and serious quantities of explosives at their fingertips rushed into it after the planes hit, pretty much has to be after WTC 1 collapsed and damaged WTC 7. That's some seriously fast reaction time, 7 hours, in a crowded city made extra chaotic by the previous collapses. But vaguely possible, I'll grant you.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:25 PM  

I think FB is blocking you. I tried to share two of your stories just now and got a message saying their security systems had blocked it.

I'd be surprised if they weren't.

Blogger Whisker biscuit September 12, 2016 12:27 PM  

Hollyweird saw it coming!

https://youtu.be/-QUv9grv-WE

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:28 PM  

This thesis also has some serious problems in Occam's Razor Land. Either those explosives were planted before the planes crashed into WTCs 1 and 2, which would be quite amazing, or some people with knowledge of the building's structure and serious quantities of explosives at their fingertips rushed into it after the planes hit, pretty much has to be after WTC 1 collapsed and damaged WTC 7. That's some seriously fast reaction time, 7 hours, in a crowded city made extra chaotic by the previous collapses. But vaguely possible, I'll grant you.

It doesn't have any problems at all. The explosives were obviously planted before. There are no logical or material difficulties at all, the only problem is your inability to grasp the full spectrum of the possible.

And that is entirely irrelevant.

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 12:29 PM  

" That's some seriously fast reaction time, 7 hours, in a crowded city made extra chaotic by the previous collapses. But vaguely possible, I'll grant you."

You obviously have not read much on it.. or you would know the whole thing is predicated on it being prewired before started 2 weeks before.

Blogger Ken Prescott September 12, 2016 12:29 PM  

Setting charges in that big a building takes multiple man-months. You have to cut away all of the structural redundancy, and plant charges, all without the occupants of the building noticing the large numbers of people doing all that.

Come up with a plausible way to do that.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 12, 2016 12:29 PM  

VD wrote:This thesis also has some serious problems in Occam's Razor Land. Either those explosives were planted before the planes crashed into WTCs 1 and 2, which would be quite amazing, or some people with knowledge of the building's structure and serious quantities of explosives at their fingertips rushed into it after the planes hit, pretty much has to be after WTC 1 collapsed and damaged WTC 7. That's some seriously fast reaction time, 7 hours, in a crowded city made extra chaotic by the previous collapses. But vaguely possible, I'll grant you.

It doesn't have any problems at all. The explosives were obviously planted before. There are no logical or material difficulties at all, the only problem is your inability to grasp the full spectrum of the possible.

And that is entirely irrelevant.


Which also indicates that there were people who knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and instead of trying to stop it, decided to take advantage of it instead.

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 12:30 PM  

also there is video analysis that show the charges exploding.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:30 PM  

A message that was also totally not subject to the "fog of war."

That's irrelevant. The firefighters and police were told that the building was going to be blown up, they were pulled back, and then the bombs went off and the building collapsed. All of the evidence is entirely in accord with that sequence of events.

Whereas the Official Story has been false from the start, and with regards to WTC7, has already been officially disavowed by NIST.

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 12:31 PM  

Come up with a plausible way to do that.

Ignore the safety aspect. It's so much work because they want to guarantee safety 100%. Because nobody wants to get sued. But in 9/11, that's all irrelevant. You just want it to come down.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 12:33 PM  

@32 Nate:

"Why, yes, yes I am. A man can, without provocation, insult and disrespect you only so many times before you also respond in anger."

how is a post about building 7 insulting to you and disrespectful to you?


I'm referring to a couple of previous "discussions" on this blog, the latter of which our host was not arguing in good will at the end.

This posting of his just insults my STEM aligned intelligence (the funny thing is that we're both 3+SD Sigmas from flyover country, one reason neither of us can win these "discussions").

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:33 PM  

When the Europhysics journal says it was a controlled demolition, it was. However, it was always perfectly obvious from the free falling roof.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:33 PM  

Come up with a plausible way to do that.

There is no need. You guys don't seem to understand, we know that it was done. We don't need to know exactly how or who to know what. The only think that is not possible is that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds without a controlled, pre-set demolition.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 12:36 PM  

This posting of his just insults my STEM aligned intelligence (the funny thing is that we're both 3+SD Sigmas from flyover country, one reason neither of us can win these "discussions").

No, you're insulting yourself. The fact that you don't grasp the significance of the freefall even when your attention is drawn to it proves that despite your STEM education, you're just not as smart as I am. That, combined with your emotional incontinence, is why you shouldn't try to argue with me.

I won this one the moment you decided to contest the laws of physics. Not the brightest move on your part.

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 12:39 PM  

-Ok, just this one time, just make it come down, as fast as you can. If it falls to the side, we don't care, people are dying anyway. Just make it a pile of rubble.
-I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THIS!!!

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:41 PM  

Of course, since WTC7 wasn't hit by anything, the whole thing was pretty ridiculous....As I recall, the "9-11 Report" never mentioned Building 7, a strange omission.

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 12:42 PM  

That's why so many of our prospective soldiers, when they apply for their branch of service, want to be engineers (we call them pioneers). It's the only chance to play with high explosives, with extremely thin safety precautions. I hear it's exhilarating.

Blogger Brian S September 12, 2016 12:42 PM  

The 2 main collapses look controlled to me as well. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but my understanding of building demolition (and what seems like common sense to me) is that if you have even a small amount of asymmetry during a collapse, the building will fall over in the path of least resistance, NOT straight down into it's own footprint.

The evens in NY are just the tip of the iceberg, there's just an overwhelming amount of weird that happened that day, I can't take the "official story" seriously.

Blogger ValeriusMaximus September 12, 2016 12:43 PM  

If explosives were planted at key structural supports at the base, which presumable is what one would do, how would the collapse of the building, in terms of its acceleration, differ from simple failure resulting from fire or damage at the base? Unless you want to posit that explosives were planted on multiple levels, such as to produce this claimed effect, how is its acceleration evidence of controlled demolition?

OpenID thresherofmen September 12, 2016 12:43 PM  

As someone who has worked a demo job, wherein it took a little over 2000 man-hours to prep a 12-story steel-reinforced concrete university dormitory for demolition, I can say with confidence that WTC 7 was *not* a controlled demolition.

These stills and short video clips clearly show widespread, fully engaged fires throughout the building and severe structural damage to the lower levels especially.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

In light of this, the question becomes "how did WTC 7 stay up as long as it did," rather than "what brought down WTC 7?"

Blogger Cecil Henry September 12, 2016 12:44 PM  

Its amazing how many engineers and other experts or witnesses lost their jobs if they came to conclusions other than the 'official' narrative.

There was so clearly explosives, free fall demolition, and even thermite evident that it is beyond dishonest to deny it.

But its amazing the duplicity in the MSM. Just astounding.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 12:45 PM  

@43 Markku:

Come up with a plausible way to do that.

Ignore the safety aspect. It's so much work because they want to guarantee safety 100%. Because nobody wants to get sued. But in 9/11, that's all irrelevant. You just want it to come down.


Actually, if you screw up the necessary structural weakening badly enough, you bring the building down prematurely and get yourself killed.

You pretty much have to go with the prelaid scheme, as our host believes, which then invokes foreknowledge of both 9/11 and that it would be successful as noted by swiftfoxmark2 @40, at which point it aligns with our host's view on how evil these people are, which I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand, but operationally is a total nightmare to pull off, as people have been noting about just the explosives planting and structural weakening.

Or, you know, fires they couldn't control because of damage to water systems from the WTC 1 and 2 collapses causes thermal expansion of vital steel supports until one got pushed off its base and started a cascading failure of the whole building.

Occam's Razor is only a guide, but it's a useful one.

Blogger Rez Zircon September 12, 2016 12:46 PM  

Those blasts don't sound like demolition-type explosions. They sound like O2 or NO canisters blowing up due to external heat (such as would be in a dentists office or dragged around by old folks on supplemental O2). I'd be very surprised if there weren't a couple dozen such compressed-gas canisters in the buildings on an everyday basis, and they would make brief but intense hot spots as they exploded and burned.

Far as I can find, the buildings didn't have natural gas piping. NG would have made for a whole 'nuther magnitude of inferno.

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:46 PM  

@10 Cui Bono? The Deep State/Globalists that want to take away your Constitutional rights and turn you into a serf surrounded by 3d world savages. And that's how it played out.

Blogger Ken Prescott September 12, 2016 12:47 PM  

Vox, you are assuming multiple things in that blunt statement, and I am not certain of your qualifications to make those assumptions.

Or, as my junior high algebra teacher always said, "show your work." Kindly explain how you are able to rule out all other potential causes for the building to collapse.

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:49 PM  

@56 NO. It took high explosives to remove all the lower floors and pillars so there could be free fall...

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:50 PM  

@58 Your ignorance of physics doesn't make your concern trolling any more charming...

Anonymous BGKB September 12, 2016 12:51 PM  

The Enron books that would have put Cheney in prison. That would be amazingly fast work tho?

The part of the pentagon that was attacked was its fraud investigation section.

They didn't say "about to be blown" in that video... I don't know the common slang for NY

Maybe it was the guy taking a break near Home Depot Mexicans that said it.

does anyone know how many actual Americans died on 9-11? Best I can tell it was most just a bunch of new yorkers.

All the Israeli citizens that worked in the towers managed to survive

Come up with a plausible way to do that.

The world trade centers were mostly empty floors. The guy who made major insurance money bought them 3 months before when they had a negative value.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 12, 2016 12:52 PM  

@51:

The two main WTC towers were very unusual buildings, with structural features that were responsible for the implosion.

The WTC design was what the aviation industry calls a semi-monocoque structure - the outer tube was the main vertical load-bearing member. The floor joists were steel trusses, and under normal loading would exert both a downward force and an inward-twisting force on the outer tube...a twisting force resisted by the floor joist trusses themselves.

Toss a hundred tons of Jet-A in there, set it on fire, and the structural integrity of those joint trusses went to hell. Which meant that the weight they bore started pulling the outer tube wall inward. Very Bad Things happen immediately thereafter.

Blogger Ken Prescott September 12, 2016 12:52 PM  

Vox, you are assuming multiple things in that blunt statement, and I am not certain of your qualifications to make those assumptions.

Or, as my junior high algebra teacher always said, "show your work." Kindly explain how you are able to rule out all other potential causes for the building to collapse.

Blogger Bodo Staron September 12, 2016 12:53 PM  

Building 7 contained CIA and Secret Service, IRS, SEC. Apparently many ongoing case files, conveniently destroyed.

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 12:54 PM  

"You pretty much have to go with the prelaid scheme, as our host believes, which then invokes foreknowledge of both 9/11 "
Absolutely. Demolition can't be done by the seat of your pants, nor would there be a reason for it unless the other towers were going down.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 12:59 PM  

@47 VD:

This posting of his just insults my STEM aligned intelligence (the funny thing is that we're both 3+SD Sigmas from flyover country, one reason neither of us can win these "discussions").

No, you're insulting yourself. The fact that you don't grasp the significance of the freefall even when your attention is drawn to it proves that despite your STEM education, you're just not as smart as I am.


Or I think along the lines of ValeriusMaximus @52; past a certain point, it's all just a building falling down.

That, combined with your emotional incontinence

There you go again. I refer you to your own comments about Sigmas, about how Alphas will stop when they've sufficient asserted their dominance, whereas we'll continue as long as it amuses us.

is why you shouldn't try to argue with me.

Eh, I'll let our audience decide that. Enough have brought their more serious that ours' domain knowledge to the discussion for me to find the whole thing worthwhile. I also have nothing better to do right now due to an infection (unlike Hillary and her supposed pneumonia, I know to take it easy until the antibiotics have done enough of their work).

I won this one the moment you decided to contest the laws of physics. Not the brightest move on your part.

Ah, but what you're taking about doesn't really fit into the box labelled "physics", it's conventionally civil and mechanical engineering, as I learned from my peers majoring them in college. I only invoke physics to bring in the thermal expansion that's an entirely sufficient key to the Official Story of all three of these collapses.

Blogger SemiSpook37 September 12, 2016 1:00 PM  

johnc wrote:@30

They also had plans to decommission the first four reactors at Fukushima before that tsunami hit. The tsunami sped up the process significantly. Notice only the first four reactors were actually damaged. Five and Six -- the new ones which TEPCO planned to keep online -- survived.

I find that very interesting and a bit too coincidental.



Definitely. Like I said, I had seen something somewhere referring to the situation I had mentioned. But after reading some other things here, it begs the question: what if the building was already rigged to go based on who was using it for just such an occasion as this? Weirder things have happened.

Anonymous Lab Guy September 12, 2016 1:00 PM  

Nothing to see here either:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-government-intentionally-destroys-911-evidence.html

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:01 PM  

Why is eliminating the impossible a "theory?"

What would happen if it were revealed that every skyscraper of note has been rigged to fall into its own basement under the right conditions? I mean, if a massive building were damaged near its base (as the 1993 attempt on the WTC almost did), would one of these towers fall like a tree? Imagine the consequent destruction!

What if a decision was made 80 years ago to pre-install the necessary means to "more safely" drop tall buildings into their own footprints? What is a sq ft of office space worth, rental-wise, if the tenants discover they're working in a building rigged to blow?

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:04 PM  

I can say with confidence that WTC 7 was *not* a controlled demolition.

You can say whatever you like. You're still wrong.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 1:06 PM  

@That Would Be Telling
There you go again. I refer you to your own comments about Sigmas, about how Alphas will stop when they've sufficient asserted their dominance, whereas we'll continue as long as it amuses us.

Regardless of Alpha or Sigma, your dialectic was looking more like emotionally-driven rhetoric instead. That's the long and the short of it.

Just continue taking a deep breath, stop assuming the original post is an attack on your person and identity, and continue to present your case.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 1:07 PM  

Why do you demand that Vox do it? There are Structural Engineers, Physics, Chemistry experts with many years experience who have done it. Yet, people completely ignore them. Because it gets in the way of what they want to believe.

The vast majority of Americans, are going to say that these experts in Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and History, who are giving researched and professional testimony… are stoo-pid, misinformed, and do not have a clue of what they are talking about, only to make historical events, after the fact, fit the narrative spoon fed to them. And thinking, in remembrance, of those who died, whether in the collapse, or the multiple pictures of the jumpers displayed, and let us not forget those heroic first responders, year after year, is nothing more, than to illicit an emotional response, a connection, to the original trauma of the psyche, the mesmerization of the suggestive low alpha state of millions of eyes glued to the television, to re-connect them to the suggestive narrative, up to, and beyond, today. Year, after year. Keeping the sheeple in a perpetual and constant state of cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 1:07 PM  

@67 SemiSpook37:

But after reading some other things here, it begs the question: what if the building was already rigged to go based on who was using it for just such an occasion as this? Weirder things have happened.

All you have to do is to hire the archetypical Evil Overlords' civil engineering firm who you have to pay extra to if you don't want a self-destruct system as part of your base.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:09 PM  

I only invoke physics to bring in the thermal expansion that's an entirely sufficient key to the Official Story of all three of these collapses.

It's not. It's not even possible, since the Official Story has already been modified several times. The Official Story is a non-starter anyhow, seeing how at least one-third of those still identified as the hijackers are known to be alive.

Anonymous kfg September 12, 2016 1:10 PM  

@15: " I don't know the common slang for NY but I've commonly heard "blow up" to mean "go to shit" or similar. Those two phrases can have very different connotations."

In context. As a New Yorker, yes, we would use that phrase metaphorically to imply a situation was about to go dramatically tits up.

No, we would never use it as a metaphor to imply a building was about to collapse, only to imply that it was about to go "sky high."

Some sort of explosion.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:12 PM  

Kindly explain how you are able to rule out all other potential causes for the building to collapse.

No. There is no shortage of information already available to you and I don't care if you believe that Osama bin Laden personally flew all three planes into WTC1, 2, and 7 before being dispatched in hand-to-hand combat in Pakistan by President Obama.

Blogger Achilles September 12, 2016 1:12 PM  

@57: toppling the twin towers would accomplish that.

Who and why are important questions in my opinion. If you want me to believe in the crime point out a criminal with means and motive. If the government took out their offices, either planned or opportunistic, it had to be more than files.

Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 1:12 PM  

First, the National Institute of Standards and Technology already implicitly admitted that WTC7 was demolisehed in their report which describes how the building collapse featured 2.25 seconds of freefall with no internal structural resistance.

Free fall acceleration for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft). Free fall acceleration means that there was no resistance encountered while the top of the building when through the space where 8 floors of reinforced concrete stood just seconds before. We are talking about a building with had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. And yet, 8 floors of that somehow disappeared almost instantly.

Occam's razor, indeed. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the box, but what's so difficult to understand about this? If this doesn't describe a controlled demolition, then what does?

Blogger SemiSpook37 September 12, 2016 1:13 PM  

@73 - You know, you don't have to be a smart ass about it.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:13 PM  

All of this will be moot once the Chinese exercise their purchase option on all of Uncle Sam's Preferred Stock (T-bonds) they now own, and they take over building and maintenance across the USA.
https://youtu.be/pktM__i-8IQ

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 12, 2016 1:14 PM  

Babel has fallen.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 1:17 PM  

Some of you people are funny. Even I noticed, as those towers fell that day, the squibs. As I noted yesterday, if it had just been one of the towers, meh, okay. But all three?

You just do not want to believe, because then it would go against everything that was spoon-fed you that day, and for many months/years thereafter.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 1:18 PM  

@69 dc.sunsets:

Why is eliminating the impossible a "theory?"

What would happen if it were revealed that every skyscraper of note has been rigged to fall into its own basement under the right conditions? I mean, if a massive building were damaged near its base (as the 1993 attempt on the WTC almost did), would one of these towers fall like a tree? Imagine the consequent destruction!


The explanation for this, which I've only applied my physical intuition to, not "done the math", is that absent something serious redirecting the falling floors, they're going to go pretty much straight down.

In general, you'd need a sustained failure of only one corner, say, of a building to achieve such a result, the one the 1993 bombers tried for (but suffered a premature detonation). That is, imagine one corner of a building failing, and those two sides starting to fall while the 2 sides on the other side don't quite yet. This has to go on long enough to impart a significant horizontal vector, and in the meanwhile, the base of the building on the other side has to stay sufficiently intact.

I'm sure you could design a building that's capable of failing in this way, but I suspect you'd both have to go out of your way to achieve it, and violate a number of design rules that are there to among other things keep this from happening in a big way. The higher strength required would also be significantly more expensive, and architects really try to avoid that for obvious reasons.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 1:20 PM  

@57-The "Deep State/Globalists" benefited from 9/11 as a whole, at least on the Invade the World axis. (It was risky regarding Invite the World.) But what does that have to do with world trade center 7? Do you think it formed even a fraction of a percent of why we invaded Iraq, for instance?

No, you have to come up with alternative theories. Like insurance money, Enron records, proof of who really killed JFK, and other underwhelming theories.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:24 PM  

The mistake people make in attacking "conspiracy theories" is in believing that if "the truth came out, everyone would know."

On his deathbed, E Howard Hunt described his involvement in the JFK assassination, who was behind it and why. Roger Stone described a conversation with Richard Nixon where Nixon all but named LBJ as the key conspirator in the ensuing cover-up.

Yet the Warren Commission fantasy stands, and anyone who questions it is ridiculed. WHY?

Because belief comes first, and the hivemind will always stick with the Narrative no matter how much data contradicts it.

10,000 people could be "in the loop" on what happened 15 years ago and a dozen each year could "go public" with photos, video, audio, every smoking gun imaginable and Not. One. Thing. Would. Change.

This is why whisteblowers are rare. People in the club know that no matter how heinous, no matter how demonic (in fact, the more heinous and demonic are the club's actions the better) is the conspiracy, no one will believe the truth. The Hivemind doesn't work that way.

It wouldn't matter if Zapruder caught LBJ handing Hunt the rifle (he didn't), it wouldn't matter if Nixon handed Stone a tape of LBJ describing his coordination of the Kabuki Theater of the post-assassination "investigation," (LBJ did, but probably no such tape exists), No One Would Believe It.

This is what worries me. The US government could have a full plan to gas/nuke/plague the citizens of the USA in order to insure the "continuity of government" (i.e., keep the kleptocracy going, with the current band of criminals in power), tens of thousands of people could know about it and it could absolutely be implemented.

We are ruled by demons.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 12, 2016 1:25 PM  

The selection of the date "9/11" does scream, "Call 911 for government rescue," not "Allahu Akbar."

I doubt Trump believes the Narrative. Another reason he won't be swayed.

Helluva heist.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 1:25 PM  

@60-That wasn't concern trolling. You can't use internet things willy-nilly. Try actually engaging with other people's posts, or moving on.

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 1:25 PM  

The Official Story is a non-starter anyhow, seeing how at least one-third of those still identified as the hijackers are known to be alive.

Do we know where they live?

Blogger J Van Stry September 12, 2016 1:26 PM  

Building 7 had a very large internal atrium. It took enough damage that the structure was no longer able to stand.
I have a friend who worked on those buildings, was involved in building WTC7, and who had to inspect them constantly (he spent 9/10 auditing the fire systems in the twin towers, if he had done that on the 11th, he might have been killed, definitely bothered him a little).
He was also involved in the clean up (and sent me a lot of then 'sensitive' pictures he wasn't supposed to share). If any of this had been done with explosives, he would have known it, and he would have said something to me. He can't keep a secret worth a crap.

So, sorry, Vox, have to disagree with you on this one.

Blogger Salt September 12, 2016 1:28 PM  

Oswald was the lone shooter. There's no evidence that anyone fired a rifle from the grassy knoll, no matter what the lying Zapruder film shows frame by frame.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:28 PM  

@83, if a modern building suffered a catastrophic failure of one side of its supports, the building is undoubtedly strong enough throughout the rest of its structure to fall over like a domino.

We see such "domino drops" occur whenever some idiots in India or China screw up the construction (or prepping the foundation area.) The building simply topples, it doesn't drop straight into its basement.

Belief otherwise is silly.

Blogger Shimshon September 12, 2016 1:31 PM  

Vox, thanks for this. One of my old college buddy FB friends is a hard core SJW anti-conpiracy theory-monger. He loves to gloat on every 9/11 of his wonderfully intellectual tear down of people who question the Narrative. I provided this post to him (which FB didn't filter, but I guess including in comments to posts is not the same thing).

OpenID thresherofmen September 12, 2016 1:32 PM  

@70

Hey, what the Hell do I know? I just have actual hands-on experience with the relevant activities on a professional level. Nothing more.

Also, @61 for the record...

The WTC was nearly fully occupied on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center#Tenants_at_the_time_of_the_attacks

Jews and Israeli citizens did die on 9/11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050408072925/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html

The Office of Naval Intelligence was hit at the Pentagon, not any fraud investigations unit.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html

Silverstein lost money on the insurance payout. It required public monies to make up the difference in cost of rebuilding the WTC.

https://www.metabunk.org/larry-silversteins-9-11-insurance.t2375/

Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 1:32 PM  

@90 Salt

NEVER doubt the official story. It's official for a reason.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 1:34 PM  

@71 Student in Blue:

@That Would Be Telling

There you go again. I refer you to your own comments about Sigmas, about how Alphas will stop when they've sufficient asserted their dominance, whereas we'll continue as long as it amuses us.


Regardless of Alpha or Sigma, your dialectic was looking more like emotionally-driven rhetoric instead. That's the long and the short of it.


Ummm, what made you think that I decided to start this round with our host using a primarily dialectal approach? Our last bout showed he wasn't arguing in good faith and our previous arguments and private communications shows he holds us STEM types in general and severe disdain (but that can be OK, "I can't spare this man; he fights."), so why not start with a mixed style argument?

Just continue taking a deep breath, stop assuming the original post is an attack on your person and identity, and continue to present your case.

Given that he's much more attacking the authorities over us STEM types than us, that never occurred to me. The only thing that emotionally effected me was the irritation of those who know not, and know not that they know not, speaking authoritatively and incorrectly about my domain.

Which is so endemic that it's not something I can really allow myself to get seriously upset about, otherwise I'd have suffered a nervous breakdown before going to college. But it's still something to fight on occasion.

The other reason, as I noted in my first @17 comment, is that I believe our host harms his general fight against our enemies when he steps outside of his areas of expertise and gets it so wrong. That makes it a lot easier for fellow STEM types to entirely dismiss him, when he most certainly gets a lot of the most important things right.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:34 PM  

So, sorry, Vox, have to disagree with you on this one.

That's fine. It doesn't bother me at all. I'm just very amused by all of you who claim to be skeptical about government, consider yourself to be historically educated, and still manage to conclude that this is the one and only time the Official Story is correct in all its details.

The reason I find it so funny is that there are so many Official Stories that are not even remotely questioned by anyone, where there is absolutely no reason to believe the story is false, and yet the truth is very different than the official version.

Believe what you want. I stopped trying to convince people of that sort of thing more than a decade ago.

Blogger Melampus the Seer September 12, 2016 1:34 PM  

And remember: New York did not change its fire code in response to the Building 7 collapse. If small fires (or even really big fires) were capable of collapsing a steel-frame building upon itself at free-fall - a truly catastrophic failure of the steel-frame structure - they would surely have changed the building codes to prevent it.

They didn't, because they know.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:34 PM  

@90 That lying Zapruder film, and the doctors who actually worked on JFK.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/donald-w-miller-jr-md/pursuing-truth-on-the-kennedy-assassinations/

If Oswald was the lone gunman, Vince Foster suicided. Come to think of it, isn't there a website devoted to the dangers of being a Clinton Crony? Did JFK and RFK know Hill/Billy?

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 1:37 PM  

Every official story is BS. But it's simply too disorienting for most people to grasp this reality; it's far more comfortable to incorporate the stories told by the campfire by the tribe's Big Men.

This reinforces for me the dangers of being On The Inside. Stalinist-style purges don't have to involve show trials and firing squads.

Anonymous Tigersault September 12, 2016 1:38 PM  

@1 I've heard that possibly CIA had a small outpost there. A few years ago, I have it DVRed at my parents' place, there was a documentary on 9/11. Among other things, it showed never before footage from inside WTC 7 on the day of 9/11. It was pretty impressive to say the least.

If it was a controlled demolition of WTC 7 it had to be months in the planning for the demolition. I'm surprised nobody who worked there was informed. If they decided to do an on the fly demolition post WTC 1 & WTC 2 collapsing, it had to be an a) quick decision and b) extremely risky.

@14

2,776 Americans...not sure how many were New Yorkers

"However, deliberately choosing to visit New York City without any form of coercion may be the tourism equivalent of coal-burning."

@24 U troll bro? I went to a concert there when I was on the Hill years ago. It wasn't bad...just remember thinking so glad I don't live/work here.

"The towers were designed to take a direct hit from an airliner."

They were but only from a 737 IIRC.

"They sound like O2 or NO canisters blowing up due to external heat (such as would be in a dentists office or dragged around by old folks on supplemental O2). "

@56 IIRC there was a fuel tank in the basement of WTC 7. Maybe that was cooking off.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 12, 2016 1:40 PM  

Ok, I had no idea I was touching nerve here.

I was just voicing an opinion of what I thought and discussed with some colleagues 15 years ago.

I do not engage in large conspiracies where hundreds of people must be involved easily, I'm not that kind of person.

And I won't stop anyone from believing whatever the FCUK they want to believe.

VD suggests the explosives where planted before hand, as in the building already, as if it had a self-destruct mechanism from the "get go" before the attack, fair to think there would have been more than possible to have time to arm and press a button and get rid of it.

Now, having such amount of explosives in a building "ready for a situation like this" sounds... really strange.

Bear in mind that I'm not a professional 9/11 scholar, I have not seen all the videos there are, and I have not heard all the explosions that they were.

I have wasted part of the day watching videos, I know, I know... most of them are probably CGI released by the CIA

This one shows the explosions in the 2nd tower with a lot of clarity and in great perspective, it also shows the fires in one of the towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1mcCBLU3tY

This one shows the damaged side of the TWC7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Vsv0eve_U

This one shows when it went down, you can hear cars and sirens in the distance... yet no kra-booom-kra-boom-kra-boom characteristic of a demolition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WJgFc4wIaQ

But once again and in case someone has some reading comprehension problem: "IT LOOKS LIKE A DEMOLITION"

I personally do not believe it was an intentional demolition with what "I" have seen or heard so far.

Show me videos which are not random and that make sense chronologically.

Random videos of poor scared firemen hearing random noise and booms in the background are not the same as the dry loud noise caused by high-explosives 10-20 seconds before a building collapsing.

I could talk for days about how treacherous a damaged structure is, or how much a construction project can be borked while its being executed, how little architects know about engineering, how false is the assumption that buildings can be designed to withstand airplanes crashing directly into them, etc.

But I will not, I got other things to stress about right now. :-/

Again, I'm open minded, get me links and I will look at them.

Having said this, one of the things that always bothered me to no end about 9/11 is this:

How the heck did the arabs manage to impact the buildings so well, I mean, two out of two direct impacts with the entire mass of the plane against each tower? With poorly fly-trained Arabs that had spent some hours with a simulator? Really? No one here find this strange?

Blogger Sillon Bono September 12, 2016 1:41 PM  

I just realised I got the last two videos in the wrong order, apologies. :-/

Anonymous map September 12, 2016 1:42 PM  

Of course, the implication of the 9/11 conspiracy is now that Muslims are not really responsible and that they pose no real threat to the West and they should be allowed to migrate to Europe and America in whatever numbers they prefer.

I suppose now they have good reason to hate us because we attacked the Middle East for no reason.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence September 12, 2016 1:42 PM  

I would have laughed this off six months ago.

I am not 100% convinced but I am certainly open to it.

I think I agree with some of the commenters: If WTC7 was controlled, that fact gives us nothing. VD's post is only focusing on that fact, of course, but the next question has to be "Why? To what end? And how? And when?"

There are too many variables. Without a whistleblower, the plans, the causes, the results, the expected versus actual results...

But I think we can get away with an actionable takeaway anyway: It was quite possible it was planned, and the (((usual suspects))) and the non-echo usual suspects appear to have benefitted.

If there exist people who would take such an immense risk as faking 9-11, could be certain it would work, could predict and manage the outcomes to their benefit (Not an unreasonable assumption), I do not think we are going to suss out their plans from our end.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:43 PM  

I believe our host harms his general fight against our enemies when he steps outside of his areas of expertise and gets it so wrong. That makes it a lot easier for fellow STEM types to entirely dismiss him, when he most certainly gets a lot of the most important things right.

That's just it. I don't get it wrong in either case. You guys are wrong about the non-STEM stuff and about your own domain. And now you're concern-trolling to provide cover for your ongoing case of feelbadz.

But if instead of being caught up in your credentials, you were more secure in your own capabilities, it wouldn't bother you that I have no respect for credentials. People tell me literally every day that I am stupid, wrong, evil, and without credibility. So the fuck what?

Every argument stands on its own. I'm not even remotely surprised to hear that your colleagues are prone to committing the genetic fallacy. What is one more, after all?

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 1:45 PM  

They didn't, because they know.

The people who write the fire code for the city "know" that there was a "controlled demolition"?

Isn't it plausible that the city still thinks the best approach to skyscraper fires is by extinguishing the fire with internal equipment? (Sprinklers, fire hoses, etc.) ...And if you have some kind of ridiculous off-the-wall catastrophe where fire-fighting is not possible, that the back-up approach would be to evacuate the building?

Blogger Ransom Smith September 12, 2016 1:47 PM  

People who aren't at least skeptical about how the towers, especial #7, went down fails to realize the same thing happened before during Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt knew and let it happen so the US would enter the war.

Anonymous map September 12, 2016 1:47 PM  

The point is, if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then 9/11 was certainly a conspiracy. The building would need to be rigged with obvious foreknowledge of a 9/11 actually happening, probably months in advance, for people to set it off after the planes hit the world trade center.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:51 PM  

As for the idea that large conspiracies can't be kept quiet: do you really think 60 million foreigners just happened to show up in the USA, of all places?

And do you really not understand the principle of the Big Lie?

If President Bush publicly admitted tomorrow that he had ordered 9/11 but the media came out uniformly against him and insisted he had gone crazy, 95 percent of those who believe the Official Story would agree that he was nuts. Most people can't think in the abstract and most people can't emotionally bear to question the popular narrative.

Anonymous Roundtine September 12, 2016 1:51 PM  

It was reported as a controlled demolition at the time. The FDNY did not think it could contain the fire and they didn't want to lose any more life, so they took it down.

Blogger Salt September 12, 2016 1:52 PM  

IndecisiveEvidence wrote:If there exist people who would take such an immense risk as faking 9-11

9-11 was anything but faked, not like the Moon landing portrayed in Capricorn 1. Those building did come down. Nothing fake about it. What is false is the official version. Too many don't add ups. Too many professional metallurgists, architects, and engineers weighing in against the official version as to WTC main towers. Then there's building 7.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 1:52 PM  

And, let's not leave everyone's favorite hero Rudy Giuliani out of this:

https://youtu.be/Cl85JSvDmsA

Also see: The Dancing Israelis, General Ralph Eberhart, Christine Todd Whitman, Philip Zelikow, Robert Baer. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+Suspects

Know what else is funny, some people expect a day long dissertation of Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry right here on Vox's blog, rather than using any one of the Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry resources on Dial Emergency 9-1-1 available to them like, Fire Fighters For 911 Truth And Unity, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and etc.

Look, one more time: Experts in Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and History give researched and professional testimony - https://youtu.be/xqqelDq4P48 - I know, it is 2 hours long. For the emotional types, subject to trauma of the psyche and suggestive low alpha state of the booboisie tube, I suggest you be psychoanalyzed at the 1 hour and 46 minutes point of the video first, then re-start at the beginning.

As for people who say that secrets can not be kept, and compartmentalized, Manhattan Project is an example. So yes, people can conspire, and keep it secret.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 1:52 PM  

The point is, if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then 9/11 was certainly a conspiracy.

Probably, but not necessarily. That's where people go wrong. I can imagine several alternate scenarios without any trouble at all.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence September 12, 2016 1:53 PM  

To add one more thing, VD has never steered me wrong in the time I have been reading this site.

If VD says WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then I'm going to proceed as if that's true. The math doesn't matter and we can check it later if need be. We can argue all day about it to no practical benefit, except to our egos. And that's a waste of time and energy.

It is undeniable that the government COULD lie about it. That there exist people depraved enough and villainous enough to fake it... The groundwork is there and our enemies are capable of it. And if a man far cleverer than I is convinced... there's no point to argue apart from ego.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 1:54 PM  

@94 thresherofmen:

The Office of Naval Intelligence was hit at the Pentagon, not any fraud investigations unit.

The Navy lawyer (civilian, not uniformed) wife of a friend of mine at the time lost some coworkers and other people she knew who were Navy lawyers types, so it wasn't all the ONI. She didn't find anything suspicious about the location of the attack, though, and it's pretty clear from the flight path, which at the end included a building I later worked in over which it flew, that that plane's intended target was the White House, which for better or worse is very hard to spot from the air. So it went after its secondary target (Flight 93 is assume to have had the Capitol as its primary target), and hit a side with an easy to navigate path to.

Although people do wonder about it hitting the wing which had just been totally renovated, which significantly mitigated the damage. The DoD got very concerned about all this after the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, for someone calculated that a bomb of that size could drop two wings if it was detonated underneath where there used to be vehicular access. In general the government started hardening its buildings in the D.C. area with bollards and such after that event and no doubt others, that was apparent long before 9/11.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 1:55 PM  

@8. Jack Ward September 12, 2016 11:45 AM

To even allow for the possibility the Bldg 7 was demolished, it introduces too many uncomfortable questions.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 1:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 2:00 PM  

I could accept that a fluke happened and the damage to WTC1 came down on its footprint due to the airplane's damage. But, ...

we have another building with a similar structure with dissimilar damage, and, yet, another building with completely different structure and damage, they all fall down on their footprint.

It easier to believe there is no God and that out of nothing something comes into being.

Dissimilar structures and dissimilar damages and exactly same outcome.

I do not have that kind of faith.

Anonymous Roundtine September 12, 2016 2:00 PM  

FDNY said they were pulling out. The leaseholder of the building said do it. They're not going to let a skyscraper burn uncontrolled in downtown Manhattan and risk a spreading fire or an uncontrolled collapse.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 2:00 PM  

@95. That Would Be Telling
Ummm, what made you think that I decided to start this round with our host using a primarily dialectal approach? Our last bout showed he wasn't arguing in good faith and our previous arguments and private communications shows he holds us STEM types in general and severe disdain (but that can be OK, "I can't spare this man; he fights."), so why not start with a mixed style argument?

Was it primarily dialectical, or was it a mixed style argument? You just said it was both.

At the very least, clearly it wasn't clean and pristine logic as Tom at @19 already noticed you were fuming mad.

Given that he's much more attacking the authorities over us STEM types than us, that never occurred to me. The only thing that emotionally effected me was the irritation of those who know not, and know not that they know not, speaking authoritatively and incorrectly about my domain.

I ask this because I do not know - are you a structural engineer?

Anonymous WG September 12, 2016 2:01 PM  

Given how often the BBC reports on events inaccurately, I've always been uneasy with how they were right on this one over 20 minutes ahead of time.

Blogger Shimshon September 12, 2016 2:04 PM  

I haven't been able to find the picture in years, but a long time ago I saw a picture that had OKC on one side and Khobar Towers on the other. Both allegedly blown up with ANFO bombs. They looked NOTHING alike. Government lies. I don't know what happened. But I know with certainty that the Official Narrative of 9/11 is false.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 2:06 PM  

@113. VD September 12, 2016 1:52 PM

To design, in advance, to position explosives within the structure, in case of an emergency, by a small group of people and that that design feature is not known outside that small group, is a conspiracy.

A conspiracy does not have to have an evil or unlawful intent.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 2:06 PM  

Silverstein lost money on the insurance payout. It required public monies to make up the difference in cost of rebuilding the WTC.

That's not true. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. It received the $4.1 billion from the property insurers in 2004. What they lost was his initial attempt to get new construction costs covered, but in September 2015, a court reopened that possibility. They originally tried to collect $7.1 billion.

Blogger Salt September 12, 2016 2:07 PM  

JaimeInTexas wrote:Dissimilar structures and dissimilar damages and exactly same outcome.

Hmmm. That makes it apples to oranges. Similar structures and dissimilar damages yielding same result would give me greater pause.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 2:08 PM  

@106 johnc:

They didn't, because they know.

The people who write the fire code for the city "know" that there was a "controlled demolition"?

Isn't it plausible that the city still thinks the best approach to skyscraper fires is by extinguishing the fire with internal equipment? (Sprinklers, fire hoses, etc.) ...And if you have some kind of ridiculous off-the-wall catastrophe where fire-fighting is not possible, that the back-up approach would be to evacuate the building?


That of course is why the city didn't change the fire code, it already had a provision for a minimum amount of time for a building to continue standing when there was an uncontrolled fire in it. I have a vague memory of something like 4 hours, which was enough for WTC 7, but obviously not enough for WTCs 1 and 2, which got hit by both a fuel load and ballistic damage to the fireproofing of its structural members greater than that of the 737 they used as a design metric.

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:12 PM  

FDNY said they were pulling out. The leaseholder of the building said do it. They're not going to let a skyscraper burn uncontrolled in downtown Manhattan and risk a spreading fire or an uncontrolled collapse.

Between the fires and the damage caused by the towers falling, any explosives / wiring necessary for a controlled demolition would have been too damaged to have worked properly.

Anonymous map September 12, 2016 2:13 PM  

VD,

"Probably, but not necessarily. That's where people go wrong. I can imagine several alternate scenarios without any trouble at all."

But you would need time to install the explosive in WTC 7 before the event, which means you would have to have foreknowledge of the event to prepare. I can't imagine that one could install explosive in a building in a short amound of time with raging fires or crowds of people.

OT: I read some theory that the towers were brought down by a missile and not aircraft. An aircraft flying low enough to hit the WTC would make noise and attract the attention of bystanders. Yet, no one is looking up until after the planes hit the building. A missile fired from high altitude would not be heard.

Blogger Lew Rand September 12, 2016 2:15 PM  

Yeah this old video that just lists all the coincidences mentions that.

It talks about the incredible flying prowess of the untrained hijackers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 2:17 PM  

@122 Shimshon:

I haven't been able to find the picture in years, but a long time ago I saw a picture that had OKC on one side and Khobar Towers on the other. Both allegedly blown up with ANFO bombs. They looked NOTHING alike. Government lies. I don't know what happened. But I know with certainty that the Official Narrative of 9/11 is false.

Conspiracy theorizing is much more fruitful for OKC (my theory, punting on the explosives details which are out of my areas of serious knowledge, is that the "Oh, nevermind" suspect was a BATFE mole (who we've in fact identified), and this was yet another of their murderous but not directly intended screwups), but for what it's worth, the Official Story is that it wasn't ANFO, but AN-nitromethane, which I'll note is conveniently obscure.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 2:18 PM  

@122

Re: OKC Bombing - Clear out, multiple bombs in the building. You can youtube it.

I believe it was an Air Force General expert in demolitions. Even mocked the whole event and said ANFO did not do it. They ignored him and poo-poo'ed him.

Here it is: by Brigadier Gen. Bentin K. Partin, USAF (Ret.) - Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building - http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport/

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:18 PM  

That of course is why the city didn't change the fire code

I thought you said the reason the city didn't change the fire code is because they knew WTC7 collapsed only due to a controlled demolition, not fires?

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:25 PM  

OT: I read some theory that the towers were brought down by a missile and not aircraft. An aircraft flying low enough to hit the WTC would make noise and attract the attention of bystanders. Yet, no one is looking up until after the planes hit the building. A missile fired from high altitude would not be heard.

I also heard a theory that the moon is made out of cheese. "No one is looking up until after the planes hit" is of course false. Did we canvas every person in Manhattan and ask them? Plus we see video of the guys working on the street corner looking up at and commenting about the first airplane before it hit.

I've heard this theory about how planes weren't involved at all and it can't be accepted because it's part of the Official Story. Like my own damn eyes are not to be trusted.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 2:25 PM  

If anyone is arguing that the collapse of WTC7 WASN'T a controlled demolition, the weight of the evidence is strongly against them and it's their duty to support that claim. There have been several, much more intense fires in high rise steel framed buildings that did not lead to catastrophic structural failure.

@43 And Markku nails it. Ignoring best practices in commercial demolition simply changes everything. No need to worry about the building falling just as desired, meaning no pre-weakening, no lengthy plans for calculating delays, no government reviews and approvals, no asbestos surveys and reports, no one spending days running primacord everywhere. Don't worry about flying debris from excess charges, just make some quick estimates, then go for it. High temperature incendiaries, of which thermite is only one possibility, also strike me as a viable explanation.

Blogger Lew Rand September 12, 2016 2:28 PM  

Roosevelt knew and let it happen so the US would enter the war.

Pearl Harbor is an interesting one. From the decoding he knew they were about to attack. He also had either the foresight or luck to move the carriers out of Peal Harbor (though I think it was as much luck).

I am convinced he did not know where they were going to attack. He was very derelict in informing his Pacific commanders of what he knew, but I don't think he expected the actual devastation. He was expecting something in Midway or another small island.

Once again someone underestimating their enemy.

But that doesn't excuse his desire for war any way he could get it, or his dereliction in not letting at least the commanders to be prepared for something.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 2:30 PM  

@120 Student in Blue:

@95. That Would Be Telling

Ummm, what made you think that I decided to start this round with our host using a primarily dialectal approach? Our last bout showed he wasn't arguing in good faith and our previous arguments and private communications shows he holds us STEM types in general and severe disdain (but that can be OK, "I can't spare this man; he fights."), so why not start with a mixed style argument?


Was it primarily dialectical, or was it a mixed style argument? You just said it was both.


I'm sorry if I gave the impression the initial comment was both, it was intended to be mixed, which seems to have been achieved as noted:

At the very least, clearly it wasn't clean and pristine logic as Tom at @19 already noticed you were fuming mad.

Given that he's much more attacking the authorities over us STEM types than us, that never occurred to me. The only thing that emotionally effected me was the irritation of those who know not, and know not that they know not, speaking authoritatively and incorrectly about my domain.

I ask this because I do not know - are you a structural engineer?


No. I've known some civil engineers, and it was a hot topic around MIT at the time I attended and was part of the community due to the 3 independent screwups in the the John Hancock Tower, one of which, the windows, was still being slowly re-mediated.

The structural engineering one got a lot of attention because the normal design rules failed it, and this was only detected by chance (it had a wind loading problem along the axis people weren't worried about).

When I said "my domain" I was referring to STEM in general, which is assuredly not our host's domain.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 2:34 PM  

I'm (among other things) a civil engineer BTW, although very little of what I do could be considered structural.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 2:34 PM  

@132 johnc:

[@126:] That of course is why the city didn't change the fire code

I thought you said the reason the city didn't change the fire code is because they knew WTC7 collapsed only due to a controlled demolition, not fires?


You're confusing me with others, I'm comfortable with the Official Story.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 2:35 PM  

Want to get into the money aspect puts, pay-outs, etc.?

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money - https://youtu.be/n3xgjxJwedA

Anonymous FP September 12, 2016 2:36 PM  

@93

"Hey, what the Hell do I know? I just have actual hands-on experience with the relevant activities on a professional level. Nothing more."

Sure, and whistle blowers would come forward! Unless they have no proof directly and are worried they might end up in a DC park, dead by suicide. There are medical professionals who have said to my face "hey, its your body your choice" regarding my refusal of cholesterol lowering drugs but they also when pressed admit they know my thyroid problems do raise cholesterol levels (no medical person told me that, another lay person told me to research it). Medical professionals will keep their mouths shut to avoid lawsuit potentials or having medical boards/licenses revoked for daring to go against a narrative that has plenty of scientific study proving it to be false (but kept quiet), let alone tons of anecdotal evidence. But they "haven't read all the latest studies", another thing said to my face by a nurse practitioner.

Welcome to a low trust society Mr. Engineer.

Go read Karl Denninger's rant against conspiracy theories as he brings up cover ups for incompetence theories. Amusing but good points made about clear cover-ups of government incompetence. Anyone who buys into the official stories is, well naive at best.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 12, 2016 2:36 PM  

@VD

>>> As for the idea that large conspiracies can't be kept quiet: do you really think 60 million foreigners just happened to show up in the USA, of all places?

I do believe in different actors pulling the cart in the same direction, that's what the left always did, and what the elites, their descendants do.

Waking up one day and planning something like 9/11 in advance and getting it right... I do not believe it unless I get solid proof.

On the other hand, I do believe in people exchanging ideas and planning the future based on mutual interests, people joining these ideas, and then and all of them pushing the cart in the same direction for different reasons.

>>> And do you really not understand the principle of the Big Lie?

I totally get it, In this blog we speak all the time about the collapse of western civilization, do you want to know what it looks like?

Well, it looks like 9/11 all over the place, and we're going there fast.

Because the powers that have decided to self-be have agreed to push the cart with us in it towards the abyss, and they all do without having to sit all day in a room discussing anything.

This is the same as with Capitalism, Capitalism works because no one directly controls it, because it is the system by which the larger amount of people benefit from compared to others.

The Decadence/Big Lie/Big whatever, works the same way, because it is the system that benefits the most elites the most, but no one is in direct control of it, Soros does its part, so does Clinton, So did Bush, so does Merkel, so does everybody involved, they all push the cart in the same direction.

They all want to belong to the exclusive club, and are willing to do whatever it takes; for vice, belonging, revenge, sadism, monetary interest, control, power, perversion, whatever their reason!

Then people like the Arabs just look up ahead, see the whites pushing the cart, figure out which cliff it is going to fall, build a lake underneath and fill it up with alligators, then sell lube for the cart on the cheap.

But yeah, narrative, and rhetoric.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 2:38 PM  

@136. That Would Be Telling
I'm sorry if I gave the impression the initial comment was both, it was intended to be mixed, which seems to have been achieved as noted:

Fair enough. However, that's exactly why I said what I did, though, in @71.

When I said "my domain" I was referring to STEM in general, which is assuredly not our host's domain.

Hm. Then why keep referring to how your "STEM intelligence" is being insulted? Computer Scientists aren't any more authoritative than an equivalent smart person on this situation.

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:39 PM  

There have been several, much more intense fires in high rise steel framed buildings that did not lead to catastrophic structural failure.

Could you list for us these several, much more intense high rise fires in steel buildings and their burn durations?

Ignoring best practices in commercial demolition simply changes everything. No need to worry about the building falling just as desired

So they knew in advance that Lower Manhattan was going to be a smoldering warzone and didn't have to worry about collateral damage? And all of this because it's a far more efficient and less suspicious means of getting rid of some controversial papers that could have just been placed in a burn box or a $75 office shredder from Staples?

Couldn't they just have hired the Rose Law Firm?

If "they" -- whoever they are -- wanted to destroy this building and conceal it, wouldn't they try to destroy it in a way that made it look like it was toppling over from fire and structural damage, rather than a mechanism that shows a "clear and obviously indisputable" controlled demolition?

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 2:43 PM  

Roosevelt knew and let it happen so the US would enter the war.

"The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:43 PM  

@138 - You're right, I did. I'm sorry.

At the end of the thread I'll be making a list for internal reference. This is a great thread for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Anonymous kfg September 12, 2016 2:44 PM  

@128: "But you would need time to install the explosive in WTC 7 before the event . . ."

Obviously.

" . . . which means you would have to have foreknowledge of the event to prepare."

No. You would need to believe the probability of some event.

Just because the building was prepared does not imply that it was prepared specifically for 9/11. You are reading that in because you are observing after that point in time when you have knowledge of the event that happened that day.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 2:46 PM  

@105 VD:

I believe our host harms his general fight against our enemies when he steps outside of his areas of expertise and gets it so wrong. That makes it a lot easier for fellow STEM types to entirely dismiss him, when he most certainly gets a lot of the most important things right.

That's just it. I don't get it wrong in either case. You guys are wrong about the non-STEM stuff and about your own domain. And now you're concern-trolling to provide cover for your ongoing case of feelbadz.


OK....

But if instead of being caught up in your credentials,

Of which I'm entirely lacking, besides a high school diploma....

you were more secure in your own capabilities, it wouldn't bother you that I have no respect for credentials.

See above, it's having no respect for me, as a person, and as a technical and software development expert (through hard experience and a lot of reading, my "credentials" in the latter are two high school or first year college level introductory computer courses), that I'm bothered with. Not everyone takes this like water off a duck's back:

People tell me literally every day that I am stupid, wrong, evil, and without credibility. So the fuck what?

Not everyone is you, and this most especially includes a lot of your allies. If it's concern trolling to point this out, so be it.

Every argument stands on its own. I'm not even remotely surprised to hear that your colleagues are prone to committing the genetic fallacy. What is one more, after all?

As a rule of thumb, for when it's worth doing more serious investigation, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect exception to the genetic fallacy is, like Occam's Razor, a useful tool.

But, hey, I'm just a tool in your eyes, so what does my opinion matter?

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 2:47 PM  

Could you list for us these several, much more intense high rise fires in steel buildings and their burn durations?

I am aware of these. GOOGLE IS YOUR SOMETIME FRIEND.

A huge fire in Guangzhou, Guangdong province broke out and burned down a 25-story high-rise on December 15th.

The fire lasted over 11 hours, eventually being extinguished on Monday morning around 6am.


Is just ONE example.

Anonymous kfg September 12, 2016 2:48 PM  

@128:

Example: The US has ICBM that allows it to make a retaliatory nuclear strike.

We have no foreknowledge of an event that will require us to use that capability.

Anonymous See papers September 12, 2016 2:49 PM  

VD, I don't give a crap about the "official Story". The officials are incompetent and no one should trust their stories. Especially their first guesses. The official story just doesn't matter.

I do however, have a lot of years experience with engineering and several degrees in physics. And I'm quite certain that the heating and consequent thermal expansion of the vertical columns in the center part of the building caused the towers to collapse. Even though the steel was nowhere near hot enough to lose enough strength to collapse, the heat was enough to lenghten them several inches. The outer columns were cooler and did not lengthen much. The difference caused the rivets holding up a floor to break. My complete calculation for the lengthening of these beams is given here as roughly 3.6 inches at 750C:
http://brannenworks.com/aca/wtcexp.pdf

As soon as the first floor gets loose that floor falls to the one below it and the impact breaks that floor loose instantly. The fact that it breaks the floor below instantly is why the whole thing comes down at the speed of gravity. Specifically, the fall takes about 9.27 seconds instead of gravity which would have been 9.0 seconds. My complete calculation, with computer program is given here:
http://brannenworks.com/aca/wtcsog.pdf

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 2:50 PM  

Here is a video of one in Dubai: https://youtu.be/_pOuRxev1IU

Please! Please! Don't let it be true!

Blogger Caedryn Stonelaw September 12, 2016 2:51 PM  

I have a weird personal connection with 9/11 in that I'm knowledgeable of the particular section hit in the pentagon by experience and my cousin was a first responder on the flight 93 crash. I've fought a lot of people about WTC 1&2 since they are very easily explainable by virtue of the unique construction of the towers themselves. From what my cousin told me, I find no reason to doubt flight 93's story, and I'm personally pretty proud of the work done on the pentagon and how it held up, and there was nothing really there that I could suss out as being important enough for a conspiracy. WTC 7? Hell if I know, that was always the one I couldn't rationally or experientially explain. From what I remember, it got hit by some flaming debris and was a standardly constructed steel structure for the time, so it shouldn't have fallen similarly to WTC 1&2, but I'm no fire expert in that scenario, either. That is to say nothing about pre/post incident manipulation which I wouldn't believe jack about what the government did/didn't know, especially if they told me.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 2:52 PM  

@144 Fun fact: "Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Inability to divine the motives of whatever (((perpetrators))) are behind this doesn't change the evidence. But I will note that you can't shred documents inside a building in the event that you're no longer in physical control of that building.

Blogger stareatgoatsies September 12, 2016 2:55 PM  

First, the National Institute of Standards and Technology already implicitly admitted that WTC7 was demolisehed in their report which describes how the building collapse featured 2.25 seconds of freefall with no internal structural resistance.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 2:56 PM  

@135. Lew Rand September 12, 2016 2:28 PM

According to Stinnett (author of Day Of Deceit) the FedGov continues to deny some of his FOIA requests related to Pearl Harbor because they are still classifed.

One of those FOIA requests have to do with the location of some ship or ships Stinnett that were deployed in Japanese territorial waters doing some kind of harassing.

Also, anything to do with communications and intelligence regarding the Japanese fleet are still classified and not subject to FOIA.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 3:01 PM  

@150. See papers

Speculations on WTC 7 don't mean that every single thing was faked.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 3:02 PM  

@142 Student in Blue:

@136. That Would Be Telling

When I said "my domain" I was referring to STEM in general, which is assuredly not our host's domain.

Hm. Then why keep referring to how your "STEM intelligence" is being insulted? Computer Scientists aren't any more authoritative than an equivalent smart person on this situation.


Computer Science isn't one of my domains of expertise, besides the basics like O notation and meaning (and being sure to use it!). "Software Engineering" is more like it, but that's besides the point here, for almost all my formal training was in science and math, I was on the science track for most of my life until outside factors forced me into a computer career.

Plus, as noted above, I attended MIT, and every freshman, even those who end up in a non-STEM major, has to pass a class in calculus beyond the AP BC sequence, and ones in calculus based mechanics and E&M. Which can get you a long ways, especially when you rub shoulders for years with students majoring in the engineering disciplines, MIT is the world's top engineering school and that bleeds over in useful ways to the minority of scientists attending and working for it.

Blogger Markku September 12, 2016 3:06 PM  

That's cute. I have a double minor in physics from Tampere University of Technology.

Blogger Mr. Bee September 12, 2016 3:06 PM  

Wondering what conspiracy theory you're going to use when Trump gets beat by Kaine.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 3:07 PM  

As soon as the first floor gets loose that floor falls to the one below it and the impact breaks that floor loose instantly.

In the case of the WTC7, in order for the pancake free-fall to work, would mean that one or more floors were equally throughout, weakened. Otherwise, the path of least resistance.

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 3:12 PM  

Unburned fuel spilled all the way down to the first floors of the WTC towers and then ignited?

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 3:13 PM  

@157. That Would Be Telling
Computer Science isn't one of my domains of expertise, besides the basics like O notation and meaning (and being sure to use it!). "Software Engineering" is more like it, but that's besides the point here, for almost all my formal training was in science and math, I was on the science track for most of my life until outside factors forced me into a computer career.

You completely missed my point. My point was twofold: First is that 'STEM intelligence' is not a useful marker for authority in an argument because an electrical engineer is not a mathematician is not a computer scientist is not a chemist, and second, if you are not a direct specialist in that field, how are you necessarily any more 'correct' than an equivalent smart guy who isn't STEM?

Okay, fine. You aren't a computer scientist, and I wasn't intending to label you as one. Is your domain of expertise more or less authoritative on the subject of building demolitions and structural engineering than a computer scientist, then?

And if not, why are you getting upset over "STEM intelligence"?

Blogger Nate September 12, 2016 3:16 PM  

"As for the idea that large conspiracies can't be kept quiet"

Oh FFS...

this is may pet peeve. its freaking self-defeating. The fact that we are discussing it proves that it HASN'T been kept quiet.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 3:17 PM  

Which can get you a long ways, especially when you rub shoulders for years with students majoring in the engineering disciplines...

Ah. STEM intelligence by osmosis.

Anonymous Jack Arcalon September 12, 2016 3:19 PM  

I'm in favor of extreme skepticism about everything, but to make a positive claim that WTC 7 was demolished on purpose goes too far. The most that can be said is that there isn't enough data. If there was proof of planted charges, there would be general agreement about the collapse, but not about whoever did it. Political dividing lines would remain unaltered.

Blogger Elder Son September 12, 2016 3:23 PM  

Here is another fact, all the engineers and physics people here proclaiming the official version, have not themselves spent the last 15 years studying the events and collapse of these towers as a couple thousand of Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry have.

Cherry picking.

Anonymous Athor Pel September 12, 2016 3:24 PM  

"122. Blogger Shimshon September 12, 2016 2:04 PM
I haven't been able to find the picture in years, but a long time ago I saw a picture that had OKC on one side and Khobar Towers on the other. Both allegedly blown up with ANFO bombs. They looked NOTHING alike.
..."


Explosives are categorized by the velocity at which the blast wave moves out from the epicenter of the explosion. In comparison to each other, low explosives have slow blast waves and high explosives have fast blast waves. Faster blast wave means more energy for same mass of explosive.

At least two steel reinforced concrete load bearing columns were completely sheared in the explosion in OKC. Those concrete columns would require a high explosive set correctly near the columns to achieve the effect witnessed.

ANFO is a low explosive. The OKC truck bomb, if it was an ANFO bomb, would be unable to shear off those load bearing columns.



"143. Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 2:39 PM
There have been several, much more intense fires in high rise steel framed buildings that did not lead to catastrophic structural failure.

Could you list for us these several, much more intense high rise fires in steel buildings and their burn durations?
..."


All of them.

Blogger Bard September 12, 2016 3:24 PM  

I'll tell you what else didn't happen. No rag heads will the some sim training took control of four jumbo aircraft, made those turns, then navigated with precision to target.

Blogger Bard September 12, 2016 3:27 PM  

I have 3000 hours military Helo time and a civilian Helo license as an instructor as well as some single engine time. No way, not ever, that some sim training allows you to get in the pilots seat and do that.

Blogger Rabbi B September 12, 2016 3:27 PM  

@163 Nate

this is may pet peeve. its freaking self-defeating. The fact that we are discussing it proves that it HASN'T been kept quiet.

Exactly. And it doesn't have to be. The powers that be must know that if the official story is plausible enough, anyone who questions it can dismissed or disqualified easily enough.

I don't think the official story necessarily conceals a full blown well-crafted conspiracy, as much as it provides enough smoke and mirrors to conceal what is critical to conceal, whatever the reasons are.

Blogger Salt September 12, 2016 3:29 PM  

@130 see papers

Before one can have collapse due to cascading floors, the floors must be capable of letting go.

"Thermite Use as an Explanation

The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson."


http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

Blogger Bard September 12, 2016 3:29 PM  

Flown as drones

Anonymous Ye Shall Know (((Them))) by Their Fruits September 12, 2016 3:36 PM  

15 years ago, the "New Math" was instituted worldwide.

No longer would 2+3=5.

No, the New World Order Math is now 2+3=666

2 Jets plus 3 Towers = (((Project for a New American Century)))

Ask Big Brother Google about the "5 Dancing Israelis" and you'll find all the (((conspiracy theory))) you need to understand 9-11 was a Zionist~Mossad operation to hijack America and turn the country into a complete puppet state of Zion in the war for Greater Israel.

Ever since that day, the real National Anthem of our infiltrated and converged nation has been and continues to be ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 3:37 PM  

@167 Faster blast wave means more energy for same mass of explosive.

There's a strong correlation there, but there are exceptions.

At OKC, it's possible that the exterior and floor structural elements of the building, after being hit with the blast wave, created concentrated shear loading on the column locations failed.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 3:37 PM  

@165. Jack Arcalon
If there was proof of planted charges, there would be general agreement about the collapse, but not about whoever did it. Political dividing lines would remain unaltered.

Kind of like Hillary's health, huh?

That said, no one's disputing the fact that Hillary, much like the WTC7 building, collapsed.

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 12, 2016 3:43 PM  

There. there is no doubt about what happened to WTC-7 whatsoever. It was intentionally demolished with preset explosives.
I guess it was time for the crazy again.

Look.  This and this are examples of what explosive demolition of a structure looks and sounds like.  There is a precisely timed set of explosions which take out critical support elements in sequence and produce a collapse... if it's done right (sometimes you get hilarious fails).

The WTC collapses had NONE of the telltale signs of explosive demolition.  None.

there were plenty of explosions reported. You can even hear them yourself on the various videos from the day. You can hear the firemen talk about them. If you haven't heard them, or heard the testimony of eyewitnesses talking about them., you obviously haven't even gone to the trouble of a single Google search for them.
No, there were lots of noises.  Things falling, smaller things failing before the ultimate catastrophic failure.  I've watched WTC videos many times and seen none of the characteristic flashes, puffs and particularly sequenced explosions.

And just how the hell are crews going to rig and wire all those cutting charges in the world's busiest office complex, and have them work correctly in the middle of raging fires?

Steel becomes malleable well below its melting point.  Fire is more than enough to heat it to where its strength goes away.  For some reason incomprehensible to me, there are people who simply WILL NOT ADMIT THIS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT.  There have been a number of steel bridges brought down by tanker fires since 9/11.  Can Troofers see that this makes hash of their one essential assumption?  Hell, no.

Keeping the insane away from the levers of power is essential.  Troofers are nuts.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 3:44 PM  

@165 I'm in favor of extreme skepticism about everything, but to make a positive claim that WTC 7 was demolished on purpose goes too far.

Demolished accidentally, then? I remember a few years back when some of our municipal whizkids tore down the wrong house. When it comes to government ineptitude, it's difficult to be too cynical.

Blogger ValeriusMaximus September 12, 2016 3:46 PM  

For those interested, you may want to check out this article: Therese McAllister, et al, Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse, J. Struct. Eng., 2012, 138(1): 109-117

Here is a description of the structural damage prior to collapse based on the authors' model: "Floor sections on Floors 13 and 14 collapsed to the floors below. The floor systems progressively failed down to Floor 5, where debris accumulated, and left Column 79 laterally unsupported in the east-west and south directions between Floors 5 and 14. Laterally unsupported Column 79 buckled and failed between these floors. The buckling failure of Column 79 led to a series of floor failures up to the roof. A downward kink in the east penthouse roof framing near Column 79 was observed in videos. A cutaway view of the structural condition surrounding Column 79 as it buckled to the east is shown in Fig. 7, along with resultant lateral displacements and column axial stress histories for Columns 79 to 81. The plots show that Column 79 began to buckle 1.3 s before the east penthouse began to descend into the building. The floor failures also led to Columns 80 and 81 buckling and floor failures across the east side of WTC 7. A separate global analysis of the structure with the fire-induced damage from the pseudostatic analysis at 3.5 h (instead of 4.0 h) showed that interior columns did not buckle. The damage state at 3.5 h primarily included failure to beams and connections at the south and southeast regions of the fire-affected floors. The failures progressed westward as the debris fell and impacted adjacent intact columns and floors, until all interior columns had buckled between Floors 9 and 14. The exterior columns were left laterally unsupported in the east, south, and north faces (the west face floors remained intact above Floor 9 because no fires were observed above this floor). Exterior Column 14, adjacent to the debris impact zone, buckled first. When all exterior columns had buckled within approximately 2 s between Floors 7 and 14, as shown in Fig. 8, the building above the buckled column region moved downward, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7." (114-115)

It seems an internal collapse of many of the supporting structures, which would have occurred prior to the initial movement of the roof-line, would explain why the collapse seemed to occur at approximately free fall. This seems plausible to me, but would be interested to hear from any structural/civil engineers.

Blogger Noah B September 12, 2016 3:49 PM  

@175 And just how the hell are crews going to rig and wire all those cutting charges in the world's busiest office complex, and have them work correctly in the middle of raging fires?

Don't use wires or primacord. Don't put charges too close to the fires you're planning to set.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 3:57 PM  

@135-They knew several hours ahead at least, because they had decoded Japanese messages.

Blogger Fred September 12, 2016 3:59 PM  

Mr. Rational...YOU are nuts because you willfully choose to believe in wingnuts rather than eyes and ears that were there and recorded said demolitions. The explosions are audible. NIST clearly said WTC7 was demolished via demolition. Plenty of eye witness saw the molten steel at the base of WTC1-2 indicating demolition. THAT is truth, and its a lie to claim otherwise. Maybe you and Sean Hannity should go drinking and commiserate about your foolish theories.

OpenID boardroomal September 12, 2016 4:01 PM  

Speaking of Conspiracies....I do not see the Alt-Right talking about this one...the U.S giving up Control of the Internet, or how it is being framed by the MSM. Nobody is talking about this http://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-can-save-the-internet-1473630838

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 4:04 PM  

@166. Elder Son September 12, 2016 3:23 PM

Here ya go:

Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Blogger JaimeInTexas September 12, 2016 4:06 PM  

@179. tublecane September 12, 2016 3:57 PM

If Stinett is to be believed, it was known that the Japanese fleet was heading towards Hawaii fairly early in their cruise. Stinett claims that there were allied listening posts in several places around the Pacific and the the Japanese fleet did not keep complete radio silence.

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 4:08 PM  

The Dubai skyscraper fire was mostly on the facade and external rooms and didn't even compromise the primary structure. It's harder to get details about the China fire (because, well... China) so it's unknown what kind of damage the primary structure suffered. The firefighters were quick to get water on it, though.

I wouldn't mind seeing some other examples that align better with WTC7. If you have ones where large swaths of the lower floors are knocked to shits from falling debris, that'd be even better.

Though I think @177 pretty much wraps this one up. Will be looking forward to VD's concession.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 12, 2016 4:12 PM  

@162 Student in Blue:

@157. That Would Be Telling

Computer Science isn't one of my domains of expertise....


You completely missed my point. My point was twofold: First is that 'STEM intelligence' is not a useful marker for authority in an argument because an electrical engineer is not a mathematician is not a computer scientist is not a chemist, and second, if you are not a direct specialist in that field, how are you necessarily any more 'correct' than an equivalent smart guy who isn't STEM?


Nope, but we're definitely not arguing about authorities on this, except of course for the authorities themselves, and the one guy who actually claims lots of real world experience in doing controlled demolitions (and if he's telling the truth, our host completely lost him, pardon the concern trolling).

Okay, fine. You aren't a computer scientist, and I wasn't intending to label you as one. Is your domain of expertise more or less authoritative on the subject of building demolitions and structural engineering than a computer scientist, then?

And if not, why are you getting upset over "STEM intelligence"?


Well, I never used phrase "STEM intelligence", that's your own characterization of what I'm talking about. And again, I'm not claiming authority, and not criticizing our host for not being an authority on the narrower domains.

What I am claiming is that someone with a sound STEM foundation, especially one like MIT and CalTech's of calculus and calculus based mechanics and E&M (a standard, in fact, but required at those schools), will "see" things non-STEM people don't even conceive of.

More generally I say that our host often speaks authoritatively (in style, not substance) on STEM topics where people who are actually know "STEM" can instantly tell he both doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't know that he doesn't know. And remains supremely unconcerned when confronted with this claim, and most tellingly, stops arguing in good faith (well, at least once with me; one's eyebrows are also raised when someone continually makes incorrect conjectures about his opponent).

Now, maybe we're all wet in that water that wasn't available to fight the WTC 7 fire, but I don't think that's the way to bet, not when our host both doesn't have a foundation in STEM (which I use as an explaination to try to figure out why he can be so right about some things and so wrong so often in this domain, not about authority), and is furthermore totally disdainful of those who do. Granted, MPAI, and for example, I advise you to assume most biomedical research is wrong.

But those of us who are arguing from the science and math, and not whatever authority we may or may not have, this approach of saying "You can say whatever you like. You're still wrong." just doesn't cut it. As others have noted, it also violates the "show us your work" rule, too much of it is based on a would be authority who's utterly unqualified, by credentials and deeds. One who's even suffered multiple real world failures due to this sort of thing.

And while our host is not a SJW, more a Pointy Hair Boss, do note that we STEM types are more tetchy than normal because SJWs are invading our domains and damaging our careers as they play their drama games, we're under a greater assault than any since the environmentalists got really strong in '70s.

Which, of course, continues unabated, and continues to threaten the lives of billions; then again, our host would have been happier if Norman Borlaug had never been born, never mind that he also helped make 1st World agriculture much more efficient.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 4:19 PM  

@163-You conflate different forms of quietude. The above poster was talking about members of the conspiracy talking about the conspiracy. You're talking about outsiders talking about the possibility of conspiracy. Not the same thing.

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 4:25 PM  

@175 Haha. For fifty years I have sided with the laws of physics against the pronouncements of politicians and their sycophants and apologists. And as my brother in-law, a liberal but also an engineer has observed, I am batting 1.000. You obviously know nothing about physics or any other useful science, but in your defense, you are probably being paid to write this stupidity...

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 4:27 PM  

@183-You don't even need that much to posit conspiracy. Our government admits we broke the diplomatic codes, and, being gentlemanly sneak-attackers, the Japanese sent a de facto declaration of war to be handed off by its diplomats in D.C. as or shortly before (I forget which) the Battle of Pearl Harbor was to begin. We decoded this message, and common sense was enough to work out what it meant.

A question of gross incompetence or deceit, as usual, looms over the whole affair. They eventually sent warning to commanders in Hawaii, in the form of a telegram bicycled over and left in someone's inbox as the attack raged. No heads rolled, of course, except Kimmel's and Short's. Because they were expendable, and couldn't possibly be implicated in a conspiracy.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 12, 2016 4:31 PM  

Looks pretty convincing to me that dc.sunsets is right - New York skyscrapers have preset charges to drop compromised skyscrapers in their foundations. WTC-7 was pulled on Silverstein's order, as he testified. Later the existence of the charges was covered up, both as security concern and property value concern.

This can also explain anomalies surrounding the collapse of the two towers. Thermite is a very stable explosive and thus a good choice as an engineering safety feature. The plane impacts might've set off some of the thermite charges, producing the molten metal. Then thermal expansion triggered the collapse. The collapse set off more of the charges. This explains the incredible heat of the wreckage.

You can still have a conspiracy, one of those agency-assisted false flags, maybe with actual Muslim patsy hijackers, and also wireless terminal guidance for the jets.

Blogger SemiSpook37 September 12, 2016 4:32 PM  

...'STEM intelligence' is not a useful marker for authority in an argument because an electrical engineer is not a mathematician...

Slightly OT, but as an electrical engineer by training, myself, there's an awful lot of math involved, and I had a couple of friends who double majored in both math AND EE.

Back to the topic at hand, I do now vaguely remember watching the WTC 7 collapse live, but I think I was still rather stunned to not pick up on the various noises when the building collapsed. My feeling is that given the particular tenants of that building, it makes sense that there would be some sort of CONTINGENCY (it wouldn't be a conspiracy, even though it sounds sexier to certain folks) in place to get the building down in the event of an attack on New York, regardless of what the catalyst would be.

Keep in mind, as well, that when any sort of office structure is completed, the buildings themselves are an empty shell, so in the construction of those internal spaces, it is reasonable to think that you could slip in a demolition type of fail-safe without too much of an issue. Hell, if the USG was the primary tenant, regardless of who was in that building (acknowledged or unacknowledged), there might have been some hidden language in a contract somewhere demanding it be done.

Personally, I don't think I can 100% get behind that, but I'm willing to consider it a possibility.

Blogger OneWingedShark September 12, 2016 4:32 PM  

Rabbi B wrote:What did building 7 contain?

Ffinancial records and case files, offices for a LOT of government agencies (and presumably their records), and several insurance companies.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 4:32 PM  

But those of us who are arguing from the science and math, and not whatever authority we may or may not have, this approach of saying "You can say whatever you like. You're still wrong." just doesn't cut it. As others have noted, it also violates the "show us your work" rule, too much of it is based on a would be authority who's utterly unqualified, by credentials and deeds.

You're not arguing from the science or the math. All you've tried to do is to undermine my credibility by assertion and an appeal to STEM authority. And all you've managed to do is dig yourself a deeper hole.

You've also repeatedly lied. To give one example, I am not a would-be authority. I don't care in the slightest what you think nor am I interested in attempting to persuade anyone about what happened on 9/11; most of the Official Story adherents can't even bother to read any of the Official Story accounts and are unaware that there are multiple versions of the Official Story.

Someone like Stillon Bono is sufficiently open-minded to consider things for himself. I don't mind pointing out a few things to people like that. But I know your sort is only going to believe whatever your accepted STEM authorities are currently telling you to believe. And that's not my problem.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 4:33 PM  

@188-Oh, I forgot to add, that message was sent, like, 14 hours before the attack. George Marshall had various means of warning Hawaii immediately, via phone, radio, etc., but they chose a hand-delivered telegraph.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 4:39 PM  

@190. SemiSpook37
Slightly OT, but as an electrical engineer by training, myself, there's an awful lot of math involved, and I had a couple of friends who double majored in both math AND EE.

It's related, certainly, but you're not going to go to a mathematician for an expert opinion on designing the next processor.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 4:43 PM  

What I am claiming is that someone with a sound STEM foundation, especially one like MIT and CalTech's of calculus and calculus based mechanics and E&M (a standard, in fact, but required at those schools), will "see" things non-STEM people don't even conceive of.

That's complete bullshit. To give one anecdotal example, my father went through a PhD program at MIT in EE. He was better at advanced math than me, but he was FAR less able to conceive of things that I could see than the other way around.

More generally I say that our host often speaks authoritatively (in style, not substance) on STEM topics where people who are actually know "STEM" can instantly tell he both doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't know that he doesn't know. And remains supremely unconcerned when confronted with this claim, and most tellingly, stops arguing in good faith

Ah, now I think I know who you are. I have a Bachelor of Science degree. Do you, my dear Defender of the STEM faith?

Blogger Ingot9455 September 12, 2016 4:43 PM  

That all skyscrapers, even only those in certain areas, have preset charges within to bring them down fails the test of corruption.

If there were thermite or explosive charges sitting attached to support areas of a building, they would eventually be spotted and stolen by people accessing the support areas. Say, when a restroom flood or pipe repair requires people to go into those places.

Anonymous johnc September 12, 2016 4:45 PM  

New York skyscrapers have preset charges to drop compromised skyscrapers in their foundations.

If you know which NY buildings have explosives already installed just waiting to go off, would you mind sharing that info with those of us who visit the city on occasion?

Don't be a hater like Nate who gets a thrill out of our doom. Nater the Hater.

Blogger The Kurgan September 12, 2016 4:47 PM  

That Would be a fag telling us he's a fag,

You're an obvious Troll. And the only stem you know is either the one of a Mariana plant or that of your boyfriend.

Not a single thing you said is even remotely relevant. Over 14,000 professionals have all signed a document that states the official story is bullshit. I don't know a single engineer that believes the two towers came down the way they say they did, never mind building 7.
You are a liar and probably a shill.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 4:48 PM  

Just in case this isn't clear by now, That Would Be Telling has no interest in WTC7 whatsoever, he is a butthurt Gamma midwit taking his long-awaited shot. This is not "a mixed style argument", this is a purely rhetorical attack cloaked in pseudo-dialectic.

You're still out of your league, MIT boy.

1 – 200 of 385 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts