wtc collapse debate with SanderO, split from toronto event thread Options

[SanderO]

My FOS study is based on information about steel design I took from the web. In practice this may be very different. The yield strength of A36 steel was given at 36,000 psi and I can't know what the assumed yield strength actually when the towers were engineered.

My study was basically done as follows:

1. calculate the total area of the core columns on floor 1. This was taken from this web site: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data and the steel characteristics

"As with most steels, A36 has a density of 0.28 lbm/cu in (7.8 g/cm3). A36 steel in plates, bars, and shapes with a thickness of less than 8 in (203 mm) has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi (250 MPa) and ultimate tensile strength of 58,000–80,000 psi (400–550 MPa). Young's modulus for A36 steel is 29×106 psi (200 GPa). Plates thicker than 8 in have a 32,000 psi (220 MPa) yield strength and the same ultimate tensile strength.[1] A36 steel has a Poisson's ratio of 0.260, a compressive strength of 0.152 GPa and a shear modulus of 79.3 GPa. A36 is a standard carbon steel, without advanced alloying."


2. *construct* the facade columns using the following assumptions:
a. the thinnest steel plate used was .25" thick at the very top
b the area of the facade steel would increment in thickness as the core - .125"
c. the facade steel area would be larger than the core reflecting its larger share of the axial floor loads and the need to resist wind shear
d. the thickest steel plate of the 14x14 columns has to accommodate the drill pattern and the erection requirement to work inside the column (8" min ID) limited the plate thickness to approximately 2.5"

Note:

I am uncertain as to whether the webs would match the thickness of the flanges of the facade columns in the lower floors of the facade columns. They may have been engineered to have thicker flanges and thinner webs and this could decrease the total column area for the facade columns. The ratio I got using the above method made the ratio of the facade cross section to the core cross section GREATER than the floor load distribution:
62% for the facade
38% for the core
while the floor load distribution was (according to my calculations):
57% for the facade
43% for the core
This represents a 5% difference in the facade's favor. That is, the wall thickness of the facade COULD have been less by 5% matching the axial load distribution between core and facade. And this could have been achieved using thinner webs. But the takeaway is that this would only make the facade's strength reduced by 5%. So the facade's total axial load strength based on the above assumptions would then be about 480,000 tons as opposed to the 510,000 tons used in the study. With the total axial load remaining at the assumed 500,000 tons the FOS would have decreased a bit to about 1.6.

Since the working yield strength can be higher and as much as 58,000 psi or higher... the FOS would increase by as much as 2 times. However, my research also revealed that the average FOS for steel frames was determined in studies to be 1.42. and the AISC-recommended FOS value ranges from 1.67 to 1.92.


Factor of Safety Application
1.25 - 1.5 Material properties known in detail. Operating conditions known in detail Loads and resultant stresses and strains known with with high degree of certainty. Material test certificates, proof loading, regular inspection and maintenance. Low weight is important to design.
1.5 - 2 Known materials with certification under reasonably constant environmental conditions, subjected to loads and stresses that can be determined using qualified design procedures. Proof tests, regular inspection and maintenance required
2 - 2.5 Materials obtained for reputable suppliers to relevant standards operated in normal environments and subjected to loads and stresses that can be determined using checked calculations.
2.5 - 3 For less tried materials or for brittle materials under average conditions of environment, load and stress.
3 - 4 For untried materials used under average conditions of environment, load and stress.
3 - 4 Should also be used with better-known materials that are to be used in uncertain environments or subject to uncertain stresses.

My conclusion is that the FOS of the twin tower steel was below FOS 2 and at or above the 1.65 I calculated using the above assumptions,

Accordingly my *analysis* of a progressive failure in the core still remains valid. The 8 column failure *model* (example) would simply have to be modified and have a few more columns fail to bring about a global core failure. If the FOS was 2, loss of 51% of the core's columns and or strength would lead to the global collapse of the core. If the FOS was 1.8, loss of 40% of core's columns and or strength would lead to the global collapse of the core.

The takeaway from this FOS study is that if the twin towers' cores had FOS within the normal range specified by the AISC then no more than 51% and as little as 26% of the core *failing* or loss of that much strength from heat weakening, *devices* and severed columns would bring on the global collapse of the core.

[onesliceshort]

That's a lot to go through SanderO. I'm not an expert on architecture (not even close to a layman on the subject) so I'll leave that for somebody else to discuss.
From what I see, you're repeating much of the same that I've already pointed out.

I am not insisting I am correct, but I am stating I could be correct and your level of certainty about what happened does not seem to be a complete and coherent explanation as much as a string of interpretations of what you believe is evidence.

My "interpretations" of the lobby of WTC7 being destroyed before the collapse of the towers?

The explosions felt and heard in the basements of the towers?

Seeing the towers come down in much the same way even though they were struck in different areas at different heights with different "fuel payloads"? Different "structural damage"?

The way WTC7 fell?

How the BBC announced that WTC7 would fall before it did?

Massive heat under the structures for weeks afterwards?

Media (blanket censored) reports of explosives being intercepted that morning in Manhattan)?

Molten metal both described by firefighters and witnessed on video?

(By the way, your insistence that jetfuel could spread down the shafts and cause an explosion over a thousand feet below (basement 6), weaken the steel beams and cause a mini inferno in an oxygen starved environment for weeks sounds more of a "conspiracy theory")

The fact that a demolition expert unambiguously stated that it was "controlled demolition?

Your "interpretation"? A string of get out clauses for the OCT. Fair enough, you keep on making excuses for it all. Me personally? I'd rather hear the answers from an independent enquiry with all the above queries (and then some) on the table. Not a diluted package that you are pushing here.

I don't care whether my explanations is not as shocking as explosive controlled demolition. I am interested in the truth and NIST and the 911 Commission and the media are still engaged in a cover up.

Don't even think of going there SanderO. Stop branding me (or anybody who raises questions that don't meet your agenda) as "twoofers". All of the points I've raised are viable, logical questions that you've responded to with your own speculation and wholesale denial.

Why are you and others in the truth movement so threatened by the idea that these building's destruction were not some massive conspiracy... but could have been a much *smaller* one? I don't think even the one I think was possible could have been done by AQ.

"Threatened"? No, I'm worried that certain people in the last few years have been lowering their sights, whether by agenda and/or a cointel inspired op to further marginalize and squeeze all people who still have pertinent questions like those I've raised into the "tinhat brigade".

It's irrelevant whether the conspiracy was massive or "small". With what little bona fide proof or evidence that we do have, why go after them with anything less than we have in the armory?

You want to pursue an avenue where even you are hmmming and haaing and flaffing about. All of the cards are on the table until they answer them. Not you.

[amazed!]

I know it's not particularly scientific, but the circumstantial case is huge and compelling. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly in conflict with the OCT.

As I have suspected for a long time Sander, really you are at the most fundamental level simply an apologist for the government story.

You attempt to disguise that with flowery rhetoric with engineering terms, but in the end you are simply an apologist for the government story. It seems we have come full circle in your various theories here, and this morning you clearly state that "well, gee whiz, it seems the government story might be right after all".

[SanderO]

Amazed,

I am not an apologist for anyone. I have stated many many times that the NIST *science* and engineering is a disgrace.

On the other hand I believe that the mainstream truth position - explosive controlled demolition... is over stated, circumstantial and the evidence to support is quite *thin*. I DO NOT rule out that there was *engineered intervention* in the cores of all three towers.

My main *theory* is that the buildings collapsed the cause was from core failure which was comprised of heat weakening, complete severing from the plane strikes, and perhaps (speculation) placement of incendiaries of explosives in the cores. Building 7 may have suffered damage from explosion to the Con Ed sub station would might have weakened the 4 transfer trusses in the core. This *theory* in no way resembles the NIST of OCT explanation EXCEPT that the OCT refers to the towers' destruction as collapses and I agree. The truth movement theories are all *massive* explosive demolition or DEWs or mini nukes. And YES since I can't be certain about the *mix* of weakening factors I am not prepared to declare that there definitely was engineered intervention. I do think that the plane damage and the fire weakening appear to be insufficient alone to cause the core failures. Hence I call for a new investigation.

This is not an *you are with us or against us* dichotomy. I am only interested in the truth and I am certain the the OCT contains many lies and deceptions. So I am not with you or with NIST/OCT.

One,

You wrote italics:

The explosions felt and heard in the basements of the towers?

I don't dispute them, but I attribute them to PROBABLY being transformers and HVAD equipment and tanks exploding. The towers came down from the top not the bottom so what could the purpose of explosives in the basements be?

Seeing the towers come down in much the same way even though they were struck in different areas at different heights with different "fuel payloads"? Different "structural damage"?


The planes provided only SOME of the damage to the cores... as noted there were 3 possible factors and the forth variable was the mass above the plane strike zone. It was double in tower 2. Plus tower 2 had the corner or core taken out by the plane and 1 did not. The collapse was a floor collapse AFTER the core failed at the plane strike zones. Same mechanism of destruction... initiation had same components in different proportions.

The way WTC7 fell?

I believe was we see falling is ONLY the curtain wall... a hollow building.. actually not a building at all at that point... the entire inside had already collapsed. The north side clearly is bowing INWARD... not dipping... as dipping in the center would definitely shatter all the glass in the curtain wall... inward bowing would not. Inward bowing means there was virtually nothing behind MOST of the facade (curtain wall) when it came down.

How the BBC announced that WTC7 would fall before it did?

I suspect BBC was told that the NYC DOB, and FDNY were not sure the building would make it and they did remove all personnel in the afternoon. Perhaps - guess - BBC did a produced segment to run the moment the tower can down... as anticipated... but they aired the piece too soon with all the confusion going on that day. Someone needs to ask them how that did happen.

Massive heat under the structures for weeks afterwards?

I attribute this to heat from the friction which destroyed and pulverized all the concrete. It may have also caused exotic exothermic reactions such as thermite which does not require a source of oxygen... the collapse contained a chemistry lab soup of elements... all ground up with water and heat... I am not a chemist but I wouldn't rule this out.

Media (blanket censored) reports of explosives being intercepted that morning in Manhattan)?

This may be true. Perhaps they wanted to limit the panic of the people. As there were things exploding in the buildings... but it was not confirmed what actually exploded... and so they avoided speculation and just didn't go there.

Molten metal both described by firefighters and witnessed on video?

See my answer above. I don't see why this couldn't happen from heat and the right chemicals

(By the way, your insistence that jetfuel could spread down the shafts and cause an explosion over a thousand feet below (basement 6), weaken the steel beams and cause a mini inferno in an oxygen starved environment for weeks sounds more of a "conspiracy theory")

Not all the fuel went down the shafts and I don't think it was the ONLY source of explosions down there. I suspect the damage was not as severe as some believe... There was apparently no distortion of the area around these low level explosions indicating to me at least that the frame was still intact down there.

The fact that a demolition expert unambiguously stated that it was "controlled demolition?

It is a fact that Danny Jawenko made this statement. It is not a fact that it was a controlled demolition. He couldn't possibly know that. It was a professional opinion. He made that judgment after looking at the CNN video. And it DOES look like a building coming down from a CD. But he made that statement without knowing about the structure, the transfer trusses, the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel and the massive Con Ed sub station that building was built on top of which likely had exploded when the first plane hit tower 1.

In all three towers...there could have been some pre placed devices to make sure the collapses happen... because the plane DID not collapse the twins And it would be rather hard to predict that the subsequent fires and heat weakening would *finish the job*. We can speculate from here to kingdom come about what happened, what planes hit the towers, how much fuel was in them, and on and on.

But we can determine that those building COLLAPSED from some set of causes... and were not exploded to bits. That is for all to see in the observations if they look carefully and objectively and thoroughly.

All the CD evidence is circumstantial as far as I can tell. One can't rule it out, but you can't take this to the bank.

[onesliceshort]

Same old. same old.

Later.

[9/11 Justice Now]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) I find this clip very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U...feature=related

Could exploding jet fuel cause these injuries? Or would it require the force of explosives being detonated?

People injured bone fractured from the concussive force of the blast in the North Tower, rather interesting to say the least it think.

[SanderO]

Same old same old? Isn't this the kettle calling the pot black?

I've raised several points which others rather than debate on the merits.

The comment is dismissive and not what one would expect in a debate or discussion. Imagine, if you will, if someone in the truth movement was in a public debate and either party responded to their opponent with the *same old same old * line? This would not go over well to the audience and would sound as if the person making this statement is sidestepping the points made. Those points may not be *true*, but dismissal out of hand is not debate or an acceptable way to go about it.

I don't even expect to convince anyone that the explosions heard WERE DEFINITELY not from bombs. I am only trying to get people to consider that this *evidence* may not be the bombs people believe them to be, and could possibly be from other sources of explosions.

I have made similar arguments about other *observations* offering what I believe are plausible explanations with the same objective... consider the alternatives and all meet the same sort of response... ridicule and ad homs or a change of subject asking me to explain something else (which I do anyway).

I've also shown that at least one *statement of fact* by AE911T about the distance and speed of facade panels landing over at the Winter Garden skylight was inaccurate by a wide margin. The claim was 600 feet and 70 mph and my assertion is ~440 feet at 35 mph. I haven't seen this point refuted... but it has been ignored.

The event was very complex and unprecedented and since we were deceived we might tend to believe the entire account was false, that areas where they are silent, they are covering up the real conspiracy. Having lost our trust we then seem to feel free to assemble almost any conspiracy which involves *them*.

Frankly all the mysteries about the planes, who was on them, what gate did they push off from, were they swapped, how were they able to fly at the reported speeds, perform to precision maneuvers, and disappear with no serial numbered parts identified and so on is a much more fertile ground for alleging deception than whether a huge building can or cannot collapse as they did driven by gravity.

It is my belief based on examination of the structures and engineering issues, and careful observations that the truth movement is barking up the wrong tree with all the emphasis on smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition, DEWs, mini nukes and so forth. I cannot rule out some level of engineered intervention in the towers' destruction and that alone demands further (a new official) investigation. I realize two main area of resistance to why I have been pointing out.

1. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven (of what ever initiating cause), much of the wind goes out of the sails of groups such as AE911T.

2. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven the scientific credibility of the 911 truth scientists comes into question. We've looked to professionals who were not who they claimed to be technically.

3. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven it opens the possibility that those who are advocating the explosions controlled demolition and such things as DEWs and mini nukes are distractions, intentional or unintentional. If these distractions are intentional, it opens the possibility that the real perps are involved in crippling the advocates of truth and justice, are inside the truth movement as infiltrators and have probably planned to confuse and cripple any opposition by the use of these tactics.

I would urge readers to take a trust but VERIFY approach. I have found that many people who I trusted on technical matters had made mistakes. (And I am certain I am making them as well). Think for yourself and try to be as objective as possible and a critical thinker.

"Critical thinking, in general, refers to higher-order thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. The concept is somewhat contested within the field of education due to the multiple possible meanings.[1] The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece and in the East, to the Buddhist Abhidharma. Critical thinking is an important component of most professions. It is a part of the education process and is increasingly significant as students progress through university to graduate education."

This post has been edited by SanderO: Sep 26 2011, 09:39 AM

[onesliceshort]

SanderO, "same old, same old" as in the discussion will go round in circles. I've answered all points raised by you within my limits.

You have your beliefs and I have mine.

The best example of how this "debate" will never work is that you summarily dismiss my concerns about explosions and witnessed damage as possibly being caused by "transformers" just so that it fits around your theory.

My approach as I've repeatedly said is that any new enquiry demands that all points raised are answered by the suspects and their apologists. No holds barred.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that your very much narrowed down personal claims (you haven't even been specific on those!), must ignore valid arguments/questions? You haven't debunked any of them. Not even close. So imagine presenting your package to prove that 9/11 was an "inside job".

You've singlehandedly narrowed the argument down to something may or may not have triggered the collapses of the 3 towers and the rest is normal.

You honestly don't see how weak and counterproductive that is???

They would handwave it away with another 10 years of technobabble and horseshit. Maybe they might say "we just don't know". What then?

[amazed!]

Sander

My apology for not being able to express it accurately and verbatim, but there is a principle in logic that basically states that if any part of a proposition is found to be false, then the entire proposition is found to be false.

That's where we have been for years regarding the events of the day.

The OCT has been proved invalid in so many details that logic demands that the entire proposition is false.

Yet here you are trying to excuse and rationalize those invalid parts. Sorry. While you are most civil and respectable, your premise is irrational in the big picture. You may not consider yourself a government apologist, but in the end you are defending the government position.

[9/11 Justice Now]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) I find this clip very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U...feature=related

Could exploding jet fuel cause these injuries? Or would it require the force of explosives being detonated?

People injured bone fractured from the concussive force of the blast in the North Tower, rather interesting to say the least it think.

No one has any idea? I guess we should just continue mass debating lol.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Sep 26 2011, 02:01 PM

[SanderO]

Amazed,

Perhaps yes and perhaps no. I agree that there are many false parts to the official story. There was a lot of deception and the 911 commission and the NIST reports amount to cover ups. We agree on this.

Now when I try to understand what I witnessed... in the vids, stills, testimony etc. I do not come away with the same *read* as those in the truth movement. I don't discount out of hand the interpretations of the *evidence* by others, I offer another way to see it.

I approached my understanding from a more technical engineering perspective.

The problem seems to be is that the implication of my *perspective* is a far less *shock and awe* conspiracy. My findings seem to suggest that a massive complex hi tech conspiracy in SOME aspects might not have taken place. I don't think this is moving close to the 19 hijackers did it with OBL's help. And my *theory* doesn't preclude *plants* inside the US national security state from having played a part in the event.

And yes, we can't settle this without a serious re examination of the *evidence* and so these discussions are a bit like beating a dead horse. I only hope that some people can be a bit more objective and not so certain about what happened.... as we are about what didn't happen.

Sander

My apology for not being able to express it accurately and verbatim, but there is a principle in logic that basically states that if any part of a proposition is found to be false, then the entire proposition is found to be false.

That's where we have been for years regarding the events of the day.

The OCT has been proved invalid in so many details that logic demands that the entire proposition is false.

Yet here you are trying to excuse and rationalize those invalid parts. Sorry. While you are most civil and respectable, your premise is irrational in the big picture. You may not consider yourself a government apologist, but in the end you are defending the government position.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Sep 26 2011, 03:05 PM

[onesliceshort]

The problem seems to be is that the implication of my *perspective* is a far less *shock and awe* conspiracy.

That is so far from what the problem is, that it's breathtaking SanderO.

If there was evidence that was 99% physically proven that points to an inside job, I'd be all over it like a rash to protect it and drop everything else if I knew it would lead to a mass awakening. No matter how "dull" it was.

As a matter of fact I don't even know what your "perspective" actually is other than explosives may or may not have brought down the towers and being ambiguous as to what you believe actually initiated the collapses. More importantly how could your theory (whatever it is) be used to convince anybody that the 9/11 OCT was a lie?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 26 2011, 04:48 PM

[SanderO]

One,

My work is not about convincing anyone that the OCT is a lie or contains many of them. My work is about describing and understanding how those building could come apart as they did.

Others have falsified many aspects of the OCT such as the failure to produce evidence of what planes were supposedly crashed into the 4 site... that sagging trusses would not pull the facade columns of the twin towers in and initiate a global failure.

I am not in the *business* of marketing a theory about who dunnit, but more about what was actually done.

It's pretty clear that the gov and the media deceived us... the truth movement has done a great job on demonstrating this. I don't have to do that.

I don't think the truth movement has done a good job in explaining what happened... other than the rather vague term - explosive controlled demolition. Some have speculated that the twins were pulverized in mid air, turned to dust... and so forth.

But yes the cover up was an *inside job* if that's the term you prefer.... and it also may turn out that the planning and the execution was an inside job. I don't think there's solid evidence of that. It does seem likely that hijacked planes slamming into the twins would not cause them to collapse as they did. Hearing explosions does not equate to an *inside job*. The case has yet to be made in my opinion.

That is so far from what the problem is, that it's breathtaking SanderO.

If there was evidence that was 99% physically proven that points to an inside job, I'd be all over it like a rash to protect it and drop everything else if I knew it would lead to a mass awakening. No matter how "dull" it was.

As a matter of fact I don't even know what your "perspective" actually is other than explosives may or may not have brought down the towers and being ambiguous as to what you believe actually initiated the collapses. More importantly how could your theory (whatever it is) be used to convince anybody that the 9/11 OCT was a lie?

[9/11 Justice Now]

here is Chandlers latest analysis this should prove to be interesting "rocket projectiles" hmmmm really

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns

Rockets at the World Trade Center

And guess who is in the comments section on page, the infamous Ron Weakling who repeatedly lies and is still lying
for the OCT i guess he just cant manage to remove his head from his ass even after all of these years.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Sep 27 2011, 05:25 AM

[SanderO]

Justice,

I've looked at Chandler's video a half dozen times. Here are my comments about:

1. He has too few trace points... a large margin of error
2. He has not determined exactly where the object came from. I suspect it's from below the 78th floor
3. He has not identified what point he is actually tracing on a 10'x36' panel
4. He has not considered the 3 axis rotation of the object
5. He has not identified how he determined the weight of the panel.. 4 tons would put its origin from above the 100th floor, at around 78 it would be 6 tons, from the mech floor 11 tons and from the floors just below the mech floor almost 9 tons.
6. He has not explained that how/why the impulse would only be for an instant and *aimed* downward
7. He hasn't explain why the impulse occurs at about the 55th floor, not before or after

I could go on, but my take away is that the work is very sloppy and he is in search of evidence to support his pet theory of explosive demotion.

I suspect that when femr2 analyzes this footage it will show that Chandler's work amounts to sloppy science and the wrong conclusion. It appears to me to be a rather *desperate* effort to prove that nanothermite did it.

Let's wait to see what others say. I'm not convinced this shows anything.

[9/11 Justice Now]

Same old same old? Isn't this the kettle calling the pot black?

I've raised several points which others rather than debate on the merits.

The comment is dismissive and not what one would expect in a debate or discussion. Imagine, if you will, if someone in the truth movement was in a public debate and either party responded to their opponent with the *same old same old * line? This would not go over well to the audience and would sound as if the person making this statement is sidestepping the points made. Those points may not be *true*, but dismissal out of hand is not debate or an acceptable way to go about it.

I don't even expect to convince anyone that the explosions heard WERE DEFINITELY not from bombs. I am only trying to get people to consider that this *evidence* may not be the bombs people believe them to be, and could possibly be from other sources of explosions.

I have made similar arguments about other *observations* offering what I believe are plausible explanations with the same objective... consider the alternatives and all meet the same sort of response... ridicule and ad homs or a change of subject asking me to explain something else (which I do anyway).

I've also shown that at least one *statement of fact* by AE911T about the distance and speed of facade panels landing over at the Winter Garden skylight was inaccurate by a wide margin. The claim was 600 feet and 70 mph and my assertion is ~440 feet at 35 mph. I haven't seen this point refuted... but it has been ignored.

The event was very complex and unprecedented and since we were deceived we might tend to believe the entire account was false, that areas where they are silent, they are covering up the real conspiracy. Having lost our trust we then seem to feel free to assemble almost any conspiracy which involves *them*.

Frankly all the mysteries about the planes, who was on them, what gate did they push off from, were they swapped, how were they able to fly at the reported speeds, perform to precision maneuvers, and disappear with no serial numbered parts identified and so on is a much more fertile ground for alleging deception than whether a huge building can or cannot collapse as they did driven by gravity.

It is my belief based on examination of the structures and engineering issues, and careful observations that the truth movement is barking up the wrong tree with all the emphasis on smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition, DEWs, mini nukes and so forth. I cannot rule out some level of engineered intervention in the towers' destruction and that alone demands further (a new official) investigation. I realize two main area of resistance to why I have been pointing out.

1. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven (of what ever initiating cause), much of the wind goes out of the sails of groups such as AE911T.

2. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven the scientific credibility of the 911 truth scientists comes into question. We've looked to professionals who were not who they claimed to be technically.

3. If the collapse mechanisms were gravity driven it opens the possibility that those who are advocating the explosions controlled demolition and such things as DEWs and mini nukes are distractions, intentional or unintentional. If these distractions are intentional, it opens the possibility that the real perps are involved in crippling the advocates of truth and justice, are inside the truth movement as infiltrators and have probably planned to confuse and cripple any opposition by the use of these tactics.

I would urge readers to take a trust but VERIFY approach. I have found that many people who I trusted on technical matters had made mistakes. (And I am certain I am making them as well). Think for yourself and try to be as objective as possible and a critical thinker.

"Critical thinking, in general, refers to higher-order thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. The concept is somewhat contested within the field of education due to the multiple possible meanings.[1] The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece and in the East, to the Buddhist Abhidharma. Critical thinking is an important component of most professions. It is a part of the education process and is increasingly significant as students progress through university to graduate education."

And the explosions where so powerful they broke peoples bones, what kind of jet fuel is this SanderO?

Super doper woper exploding jet fuel.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Sep 27 2011, 12:05 PM

[SanderO]

Which explosions are you referring to specifically?

[9/11 Justice Now]

Which explosions are you referring to specifically?

Check the youtube video i think this is lobby explosion they are reffering to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U...feature=related

[9/11 Justice Now]

[quote name='SanderO' date='Sep 27 2011, 10:40 PM' post='10801565']
Justice,


I could go on, but my take away is that the work is very sloppy and he is in search of evidence to support his pet theory of explosive demotion.

Hey thats just not his pet theory it is also ours, why attack it for? Or is that not what you believe in SanderO?

[SanderO]

Justice,

Once again I don't dispute there were explosions and explosions of whatever they are caused by. Why assume that they were bombs when they could have possibly been things inside the building... such as transformers... or even fumes igniting. Bombs are a possibility... but not the only one.

"An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. If the shock wave is a supersonic detonation, then the source of the blast is called a "high explosive". Subsonic shock waves are created by low explosives through the slower burning process known as deflagration.

Chemical
Main article: Explosive material

The most common artificial explosives are chemical explosives, usually involving a rapid and violent oxidation reaction that produces large amounts of hot gas. Gunpowder was the first explosive to be discovered and put to use. Other notable early developments in chemical explosive technology were Frederick Augustus Abel's development of nitrocellulose in 1865 and Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite in 1866. Chemical explosions (both intentional and accidental) are often initiated by an electric spark or flame. Accidental explosions may occur in fuel tanks, rocket engines, etc.
[edit] Electrical and magnetic

A high current electrical fault can create an electrical explosion by forming a high energy electrical arc which rapidly vaporizes metal and insulation material. This arc flash hazard is a danger to persons working on energized switchgear. Also, excessive magnetic pressure within an ultra-strong electromagnet can cause a magnetic explosion.
[edit] Mechanical and vapor

Strictly a physical process, as opposed to chemical or nuclear, e.g., the bursting of a sealed or partially-sealed container under internal pressure is often referred to as a 'mechanical explosion'. Examples include an overheated boiler or a simple tin can of beans tossed into a fire.

Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions are one type of mechanical explosion that can occur when a vessel containing a pressurized liquid is ruptured, causing a rapid increase in volume as the liquid evaporates. Note that the contents of the container may cause a subsequent chemical explosion, the effects of which can be dramatically more serious, such as a propane tank in the midst of a fire. In such a case, to the effects of the mechanical explosion when the tank fails are added the effects from the explosion resulting from the released (initially liquid and then almost instantaneously gaseous) propane in the presence of an ignition source. For this reason, emergency workers often differentiate between the two events."