What happened to 180 thousand tons of concrete?

[rollingrock]

At ground zero, there was almost nothing left remaining of 90,000 tons of concrete from each tower and 400,000 tons of steel.




...it was literally pulverized into dust.




No large chunks of concrete were found at ground zero.

What kind of awesome destructive power could do that to 90,000 tons of concrete?
...pulverizing it into massive fine dust clouds with average particle sizes ranging from
100-microns to 10mm, or the thickness of a human hair. Could gravity and fire achieve this
kind of destruction, or was there massive explosive energy forces involved?















"You have two 110 story office buildings, you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone a computer the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big (makes hand gesture)...the building collapsed to dust."

-Joe Casaliggi, Engine 7, FDNY firefighter at ground zero.











What happened to the hundreds of thousands of file cabinets in the Twin Towers?




"What I expected to see was nothing like what I did see at the time of my arrival, at the site. There wasn't much that you could say, that you could describe. Everything was dust and metal. There was no typewriters, there was no chairs, there was no...there was no nothing."

-Lt. Kenneth Christiansen, Leader Company 5, FDNY





What happened to the victims' bodies?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. First sentence of the OP makes a ludicrous claim about the steel.

The steel fell down. It's all right there. There are six levels of basement that the steel fell into.

This does not bode well for this OP.

All of the concrete in the towers was poured out into long, thin slabs. It was used for the floors. When the building fell, the concrete was easily shattered.

You also have a long way to go in proving that the concrete was only the size you say it was, since I can go find pictures of much larger pieces.

For the most part, your post is a paeon to the incredible force of the collapse of this building. Gravity is a cruel, cruel thing.

[rollingrock]

3. Gravity?

the pulverization began long before any concrete hit the ground




the top part of the tower long turned into dust before the collapse sequence of the lower part began, so you no longer had any 'pile driver' effect as NIST refers to it because the pile driver no longer exists. You can't have a pancake effect when the pancakes don't exist (each floor has been turned into dust one by one).

[whatchamacallit]

4. The "Awesome destructive force of gravity" meme is embarrassingly silly (n/t)

[rollingrock]

5. I don't think gravity

can make a building come straight down at freefall speed. that is, without the aid of explosives.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Which is precisely why NIST refused to model the actual collapse

and instead conveniently focused on only the "collapse initiation".

[rollingrock]

12. Indeed

and the 9/11 commission report described the basic structure of the towers as that of a 'hollow steel shaft.'

It's hard not to chuckle when you read something like that.

[AZCat]

86. While the motives of the NIST remain speculation...

the limitations of computer simulations do not. Nonlinear systems are difficult, if not impossible, to model under certain conditions. IIRC the NIST tried advancing the global collapse model beyond initiation but was not able to get it to converge to a solution, which isn't unusual for such an undertaking. I was surprised when the WTC 7 report included several seconds of animation of collapse, but NIST had worked hard on increasing the capability of their hybrid simulation software after the WTC towers models were tested. I still don't think it's a good idea to rely on such a model for prediction of behavior (unless you're going to do a Monte Carlo-style set of simulation runs).

[JuniperLea]

156. I found that odd too...

The report tap dances all around, but never addresses the full buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. You have no idea what you are talking about.

As has been mentioned before, the modeling of the entire collapse sequence of a 110-story building is beyond the ability of computers even today. And there is no reason to have done this, since simple math shows that collapse is inevitable after the impact floors fail. You might as well be saying that the Titanic couldn't have sunk to the bottom of the ocean because no one has modeled the entire sinking sequence.

[JuniperLea]

166. LOL!!

Whatever.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Are you under the illusion that gravity only operates at ground level?

I honestly can make no other sense out of your statement that all of that was happening before it hit the ground.

The upper mass was being accelerated by gravity. It was hitting floor after floor, shattering the cement and grinding the drywall to powder as it went.

Are you also under the illusion that the upper section had to remain in a recognizable structure to do its damage? You are confusing mass with structure. Mass stays mass whether it's part of an organzized block, or a chaotic, tumbling layer.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Utterly ridiculous

Again, if this is the expected result of gravity on steel and concrete, then it should be quite easy to produce evidence of a similar results from sometime in recorded history. Otherwise, your simplistic explanations smack of someone just making shit up.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Similar results? Dust coming out of a falling building?

Are you serious?

[whatchamacallit]

15. Yes I'm dead serious

If it's such a ludicrous request it should be no problem to provide something. It can be anything you feel is even remotely representative. We'll be waiting.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. You honestly want me to provide pictures of dust coming out of a falling building?

Seriously?

[whatchamacallit]

39. Your stall tactic is a FAIL

You know we're not just talking any dust, or a little dust, we're talking huge flows of dust. You can't find it because it only exists in photos or videos of CD.

[JuniperLea]

167. I've been waiting oh, so very patiently...

I thought for a bit you were going to get some pictures... not only was this a fail, as you so correctly stated, but a giant old three day fail at that.

[rollingrock]

14. Gravity can't make something freefall

when there is 290,000 tons of steel and concrete standing in the way

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Gravity is the ONLY thing that makes something freefall.

You can quote the figure of how much the materials that made up the structure below weighed all you like. If the structure below couldn't redistribute any sizable fraction of the force before failing, down goes the top part.

[whatchamacallit]

38. Right you are Bolo Boffin

but the reason "the structure below couldn't redistribute any sizable fraction of the force" is obviously because the structure below was being removed synchronously.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Your reason has been conclusively ruled out by a controlled demolition expert.

Any blasts capable of taking the structure apart would have been detected on seismographs. Experts have examined the seismographic record. The characteristic blasts of the necessary explosions are not there. This is positive evidence that no charges were used to cut columns in these collapses.

All you need is the falling mass. Nothing else fits the facts.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Need falling mass to cut right through another 5X that mass as if it weren't there

Little or no conservation of momentum whatsoever... Thanks for clearing it up for us. BTW please provide a link for the expert you mention.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. You are thinking Mass v. Mass. The reality is Load v. Structure.

The load far outweighed the structure's ability to deal with it. The structure tears apart and that mass becomes part of the problem.

All the way down.

Brent Blanchard's paper: http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf

Positive evidence that no charges brought down those buildings.

[whatchamacallit]

54. I don't buy the load was sufficient to overwhelm the structure

especially when you consider the "pile driver" ceased to exist before it reached the ground.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. I don't care.

Facts are facts.

The pile driver did no such thing. Just because the structure may have been torn apart doesn't mean the mass "disappeared." You do understand the difference?

[whatchamacallit]

64. These are CLAIMS not facts

You do understand the difference?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Says the guy who CLAIMS the piledriver disappeared.

Color me unimpressed.

You do understand that even if a massive structure is torn apart, the mass doesn't disappear? Please say you understand this basic principle of reality.

[reinvestigate911]

92. if said mass is distributed over a perimeter larger than the footprint, is not the load diminshed?

[Bolo Boffin]

94. The load has to overcome the structure, i.e., the joints connecting floor to core and perimeter

Again:

[reinvestigate911]

172. in your next post maybe you'll attempt to answer the question?

[Bolo Boffin]

199. Mass shedding is accounted for in the calculations I cite.

Please read before posting FAIL.

[reinvestigate911]

209. so that's what we're calling a disappearing piledriver? it's "mass shedding"? thanks for clarifying!

[Bolo Boffin]

210. It didn't disappear. You have yet to document anything disappeared. n/t

[reinvestigate911]

211. let's not quibble then: if not disappearing then "dispersed" mass = reduced load = your FAIL

[Bolo Boffin]

212. No, mass shedding was accounted for in the calculations that predicted inevitable collapse

Of course, this is easily recognized by someone who doesn't want to follow the math:

[reinvestigate911]

213. so what's "shedding" there? is it the "rigid block"? just how rigid is a mass shedding rigid block?

ps: your i-made-it-in-MS-Paint cartoon is lacking one important element: causality. are you trying to be deceptive?

[Bolo Boffin]

214. If you had looked at the calculations, you would know what mass is considered to be shedding in them

It's as simple as READ THE PAPER, ALREADY.

ps: your comment about causality is silly. You already know that the cause of the collapse initiation is well-known and described in the NIST report. Once started (as implied by the picture on the right, where the collapse has already started), how could the floor connections arrest that falling mass?

ETA: God, I know that's not going to be enough for you. The answer, of course, to what mass is being shedded is IT DOESN'T MATTER. Any mass being shed from the upper section as it falls is being replaced by mass from the lower floors as it falls. Even at a quite liberal rate of mass shedding, there is still more than enough mass in the descending section (whether organized into a structure or not) to rip through the floors and continue falling straight down.

[wildbilln864]

97. undamaged steel and concrete I might ad!

You're correct rollingrock. Something had to take out those 47 massive steel columns for the collapse to not slow down!

And welcome to the DUngeon BTW! :hi:

[rollingrock]

185. The dungeon

so that's what its known as around here. hah.

[hack89]

19. What about the steel?

it was still there wasn't it? And the contents of the building?

[rollingrock]

32. Steel girders weighing several tons

were found 600 feet away from the base of the North Tower.

This fascinating little video clip explains it:

Physics of Lateral Ejections 1

Using computer tracking software, it was calculated that the energy needed to hurl a 4 ton girder at 70mph was comparable to the energy needed to hurl a 200-lb cannonball a distance of 3 miles.


Physics of Lateral Ejections 2

Gravity makes objects fall down, in other words, not shoot upwards and away.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. But those pieces were in the WFC and Winter Garden because the perimeter peeled out.

It wasn't ejected, per se. The side of the building peeled out and fell that far.



Furthermore, Ryan Mackey showed in his whitepaper the math necessary to eject something that far from the towers. It's easily within the realm of possibility.

So, the general idea? Debunked with math.
The specific idea? Debunked with the facts.

AE911Truth is not your friend.

[rollingrock]

36. As video clips of the collapse show

large sections of steel were being ejected hundreds of feet away from the building WHILE the collapses were taking place.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. As Ryan Mackey showed, that's perfectly within the power of a simple collapse.

Although I'm quite sure that the "large sections of steel" you think are being ejected are actually the aluminum cladding of the perimeter columns.

For God's sake, look at the picture. You can see how the building's side peeled out. There's a line of perimeter columns all the way to the WFC buildings. If you want to pretend they aren't there, that's fine. Any disinterested reader will recognize this is true.

Edited to add: Link to earlier discussion here at DU about the ejection.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=172126&mesg_id=172126

[rollingrock]

40. Do you realize how long 600 feet is?

600 feet is nearly half the length of the Towers, FYI.


Are you really going to sit there and claim that gravity is capable of ejecting a 4 ton steel girder a distance that is half as long as the North Tower was high? LOL.

[LakeSamish706]

41. I applaud you people that sit here and argue with these "there was no evidence"

of any wrong doing on 911. I am still waiting for the answer of why they sit on this site day after day defending the "No Conspiracy" theory.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. of ANY wrong-doing? I've never said that ever, ever.

Produce the quote or retract the false claim.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Well now you've piqued my curiosity

What wrong doing do you suspect?

[rollingrock]

69. Mine too!

this should be good.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. The things that Beverly Eckert was investigating, for a major example.

Going after building techniques and design issues and the like is a HELL of a lot more productive that this controlled demolition bullshit.

[whatchamacallit]

73. Uh huh...

Is that it? So in this vague example, who did the wrong doing?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Beverly Eckert's concerns are vague? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

79. Ha nice try

You indicated that even you suspect some "wrong doing" in regards to 911. Was that a lie? Quit with the distraction techniques and pony up.

[JuniperLea]

159. Good question...

This leads right into the question... how they know what to cherry pick as their "facts" and why it means so much to them.

[rollingrock]

52. Hah!

I like the way you put it.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. You like the way he or she put it? The outright false claim?

Why do you celebrate factual inaccuracy?

Oh, wait, I'm talking to the OP. Never mind.

[JuniperLea]

157. Yeah, and I'd like to hear something other than the usual...

"Because it's embarrassing to see all you going on and on... " sure... that's why they keep the arguments going. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

168. I thought you said we were trying to shut down the debate...

now you say we want to keep the argument going? Make up your mind.

[JuniperLea]

171. There is much debate smashing going on...

I merely pointed to the fact that it isn't working on more than one level.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. You know how high the impact damage started, right?

Do you seriously mean to argue with a picture of the perimeter columns laid out all the way to the WFC? Really?

[rollingrock]

46. So if I were to drop a Ford F250 from the roof of the North Tower

Should I expect it to land 600 feet away from the base of the building?




edit: Here's a picture of one

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Read the paper - Mackey considers a beam ricocheting.

Because of the height and the momentum, a beam could easily have fallen that far out if it had ricocheted high enough.

And remember, the EXACT beams you are referencing fell out that far because the side was peeling out. The picture is RIGHT THERE. Discuss the hypothetical all you want, but the actual facts on the ground and in the WFC buildings are clear.

[rollingrock]

59. 'Ricochet?'

So slamming a 4 ton object off of a solid surface is going to make it ricochet back 600 feet in the opposite direction? That's pretty amazing if it were true.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. READ THE PAPER, ALREADY. n/t

[rollingrock]

128. I'm not a big fan of science fiction

lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. Handwaving.

Are you ever going to document your ludicrous claim that the steel disappeared?

[wildbilln864]

99. "considers a beam ricocheting."!?

Goddamn that's funny! Got any video of beams ricocheting? Nope! Mackey's opinions are proof of nothing.

[wildbilln864]

98. so why can't Ryan Mackey.....

show us previous examples of steel being ejected similarly in a gravity collapse? Because he's full of shit!
Did he also believe the collapses were like a steel sledge hammer hitting glass? :rofl: That still cracks me up. Thanks!

[whatchamacallit]

2. Without any proof of why, they'll tell it's what you'd naturally expect

from the collapse of a building with the WTC construction. Ask them to show you a single picture or clip of similar phenomenon from any other non-CD collapse.

[hack89]

17. And just how many very tall steel framed building have collapsed

why is it so hard to accept that the WTC collapse were a unique event? Exactly what historical event do you think we should compare it too? After 7 years surely the truth movement has done a little research into the issue?

[whatchamacallit]

20. The easy way out

"It's one of a kind, therefore whatever explanations we concoct can't be disproved"
What a pathetic joke:eyes:

[hack89]

21. There are no historical comparisons

no 1000 foot building (or any building remotely that tall) has ever collapse before. That's a fact you can't refute

[whatchamacallit]

22. Thanks for making our point

Three in one day, never before or since. What changed history on 911 was not GRAVITY!

[hack89]

23. Well, 767s have never crashed into tall buildings before

now have they? It truly was a unique event, don't you agree?

[whatchamacallit]

25. Building 7

Whatever structural damage *may* have been caused by the planes does not account for seeming disintegration of mass beneath the tops of the buildings as they fell. Invoking the mysterious Xfactor (planes) is too easy.

[hack89]

26. There are FDNY accounts of massive structural damage

something that truthers always want to ignore.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Where, in the basement and lobby?

There's also FDNY accounts of explosions.

[hack89]

29. WTC 7 had a massive gash in one side. nt

[whatchamacallit]

31. Then find me evidence of another building that suffered some structural damage that fell like that

Otherwise there is no causation but in your imagination.

[hack89]

50. There is none - and you know why. nt

[whatchamacallit]

56. Yes I do know why

because it didn't happen like you say.

[hack89]

58. Because it was a unique event

you can't even begin to show me a comparable fire. In seven years the entire truth movement has failed and so will you.

[whatchamacallit]

62. If it's so unique and without precedent

why are you so convinced of the cause?

[hack89]

66. The truth movement certainly has not provided a reasonable alternative.

seven years after the fact the truth movement has yet to put forward a coherent and comprehensive scenario for the destruction of the WTC.

[whatchamacallit]

70. I contend

seven years after the fact the government has yet to put forward a coherent and comprehensive scenario for the destruction of the WTC

[hack89]

74. But you can't provide an alternative so you still lose. nt

[whatchamacallit]

76. I'm sure that's how the perps in the Bush Administration see it too (n/t)

[hack89]

78. You have to have more than your hatred for Bush

a coherent story that doesn't defy science would be a good start. Ignore what ever NIST has said - don't you find it troubling that all the "scholars" in the truth movement can't even agree on what actually happened on 911?

[whatchamacallit]

81. And you have to have more than your deep-seeded need for authority

The story you believe is so incoherent and in defiance of science you ultimately can only explain it by claiming it's unique.

[hack89]

82. But I notice that you have yet to provide any historical comparisons

so judging by your response, I feel pretty comfortable in my assumption.

One last chance - what historical fire can I compare the WTC to? You keep saying they are not unique - do you ever intend to actually prove it?

[whatchamacallit]

83. Self Delete

I was being a dick.

[Subdivisions]

244. Video:

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? 56:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

According to the resident full-time obfuscaters here, every single one of those people in that video are delusional.

[hack89]

27. There was alot of dust - i grant you that

it takes some serious woo science to turn that into disintegration of mass.

[whatchamacallit]

30. Nice try scientist

I'm referring to the near free fall velocity in 1 and 2, and the NIST confirmed free fall velocity in building 7. The only woo science here is the OCT.

[hack89]

51. Considering that debris was falling faster

than the collapse zone, I think "free fall" is stretching the truth. Why are you recycling 7 year old nonsense? Surely the truth movement has come up with something better than that after 7 years.

WTC 7 was a three phase, asymmetrical collapse that took nearly 18 seconds - NIST did not say it was free fall.

[whatchamacallit]

60. Here Hack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related

[hack89]

63. So we have hit the reset button on 911?

and are going to start recycling the same 7 year old crap? Why do you think you will be any more successful this time around?

[whatchamacallit]

65. What in particular in those videos do you care to dispute?

It's only as crap as you can prove it to be, Hack.

[hack89]

67. I think you need to spend some time in the archives.

you really need some new material.

NIST has published reports on WTC 7 - show me where they say what you think they are saying.

[whatchamacallit]

71. Watch the vids

[hack89]

75. Truthers twisting the NIST draft report

show me the verbiage in the NIST final reports - you have actually read them haven't you?

[RC]

85. They'll never watch or at least admit to watching the videos

The videos will prove they have wasted years down here being wrong.

[Fainter]

233. And Certainly NOT THROUGH ITSELF. n/t

[wildbilln864]

100. there are no....

zero, nada, zilch, non-CD complete collapses of any other steel framed skyscraper buildings prior to 9/11 for any reason except CD! :hi:

[LakeSamish706]

6. As I've stated in many other posts, this was certainly caused by Controlled Demolition....

There is just no other plausible reason for what happened. I want to see a new investigation started on 911.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. No, it was not.

http://wtc.nist.gov

There are quite plausible reasons accepted by building professionals worldwide. There are some great reasons and places to explore in an investigation of 9/11. The building collapses are not among them. It's been done.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Uh... dude...

If you're referring to the nist report, the building "collapses" have not been done. They didn't bother to explain the events after the collapses started, which of course is the most controversial part. Why are you so dead set against taking another look at this? As ol' WS says "Me thinks he doth protest too much"

[seemslikeadream]

16. Thank you and never forget...............

[SidDithers]

18. If I can find a prominent Truth Movement researcher...

who confirms that the concrete wasn't pulverized to dust, will you admit that you're wrong?

Sid

[SidDithers]

47. Kick. OP hasn't replied yet...nt

Sid

[wildbilln864]

101. nope because....

that doesn't equal an investigation. That's the goal.

[rollingrock]

127. If the concrete wasn't pulverized to dust/powder

then what happened to it?

did 180,000 tons of concrete magically vaporize into thin air?

[SidDithers]

129. Steven Jones debunks dustification...

A note on pulverization.
Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette
MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South
Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the
collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled
with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in
her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure –
and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the
presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her
large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large
chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the
pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false
premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
(as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the
MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete
and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

Emphasis added.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Sid

[reinvestigate911]

130. is it true that dr. jone's research is only credible when used to support your version of 9/11?

[SidDithers]

132. I have faith that Jones can tell the difference...

between dust and chunks of concrete. Beyond that? He's a loon.

Sid

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

165. And I have faith that your personal attack will be deleted...nt

Sid

[reinvestigate911]

174. what's wrong, you don't like it when someone points out your bias?

which, incidentally, is not a personal attack, it's a matter of fact. a fact which you have acknowledged by citing dr. jones in your post.

[SidDithers]

175. And yet, your personal attack was deleted...

and I cited Jones, because some around here seem to think he has credibility. Are you disputing he found bigger-than-dust sized pieces of concrete?

Sid

[reinvestigate911]

176. what does it say for your credibility when you cherry-pick quotes

from someone you're attempting to discredit?
this is particularly questionable when the very quote which you selected actually refutes your assertion...

to wit, the OP was discussing all the WTC concrete, not just the debris present in 113 liberty street.
or are you arguing that the sample in question is representative of ALL the concrete from the WTC disaster?

i hope you're more intelligent and less biased than that, as that would be a ridiculous position to argue from.

[SidDithers]

177. You don't understand logic very well, do you...

to wit, the OP was claiming that all the concrete turned to dust and blew away. I showed concrete that didn't turn to dust and blow away, therefore, all the concrete did not turn to dust and blow away.

Sid

[reinvestigate911]

178. so no concrete turned to dust and blew away, or some concrete turned to dust and blew away?

how much of a dust-to-debris ratio would be significant, or of interest?
do you think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuBi8KyOhw">george pataki's statements from ground zero were an exaggeration?
to wit, pataki is asked "what happened to the concrete?" and he replies by saying, "the concrete was pulverized".
what exactly was he referring to?

i hope you answer honestly.

[Bolo Boffin]

179. "how much of a dust-to-debris ratio would be significant"

How much of a dust-to-debris ratio are you claiming?

Perhaps you could fill the void left by the ineptly written OP. After all, this is your claim. Why don't you get into specifics on it?

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

196. Some concrete turned to dust and blew away...

and some concrete broke into larger chunks and fell to the ground. I don't know what the ratio was, but it certainly wasn't 100% dust, as was implied in the OP.

As far as Pataki, I think his statement is simplistic. I don't think that any explanation of what occurred that day can be adequate with only 4 words.

So, what do you think was in the ~110,000 truckloads of debris that were carted away during clean-up operations? I hope you'll answer honestly.

Sid

[rollingrock]

131. Again

What happened to 180,000 tons of concrete? Where did it go?

[SidDithers]

134. Some of it blew away...

and most of it, chunks too heavy to be carried away on the breeze, were removed as part of the more than 1.5 millions of tons of debris trucked away during the cleanup.

Also, are you including in your figure of 180,000 tons the concrete that formed the underground "bathtub"? 'Cause most of that concrete is still there, keeping the East River from pouring into the subway system.

Where do you think it went?

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

137. You mean the "dustified" part blew away?

Also just to be clear, are you claiming that picture was taken after the concrete was removed from the scene? Because if not, your response is nonsensical.

[SidDithers]

162. I'm not claiming there was no dust...

as you seem to think. Certainly, a portion of the concrete and wallboard was smashed into pieces small enough to be suspended. Look at any picture of lower Manhattan on 9/11 and that's immediately obvious. What I'm arguing against, however, is the notion put forth by the OP that all of the concrete was pulverized and blew away. The ~110,000 truckloads of debris that were carted away during the cleanup would suggest that there was significant material (office, construction and other) that did not "blow away", and had to be physically removed from the site.

And I've made no comment whatsoever about the picture.

Sid

[rollingrock]

146. Where do I think it went?

Like I said in the OP and shown in the photos.

The concrete from the Towers spread and settled all over Lower Manhattan in the form of dust.

[SidDithers]

169. Except for the material...

that settled in Janette MacKinlay's window. She, the lucky lady that she was, was the fortunate recipient of the only non-dust sized particles in the entire collapse.

Amazing.

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

135. Handwaving with a picture too far away to see details.

When Steven Jones examined his WTC dust samples, he exposed the lie about the concrete only being the size you say. That's already been linked to in this thread.

[whatchamacallit]

138. What, so he's your expert du jour?

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

140. Steven Jones exposing the factual inaccuracy of only fine dust is YOUR problem, not mine. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

143. I love how he's lunatic in all things but the one that comports with your beliefs

So typically duplicitous...

[whatchamacallit]

145. "only fine dust"?

Interesting wording, did someone actually claim that *all* the concrete was turned into fine dust? Or is that your straw man?

[Bolo Boffin]

153. Ah, so you're playing semantics. The clear implication is that the concrete was all turned to dust

Are you saying that there's some kind of qualifier in the OP?

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the OP was so inept and imprecise in writing his or her post that my natural understanding of the words doesn't actually represent what the OP meant to say. Except that the OP has had, lo, these many posts to clarify his or herself and has failed to do so. So my conclusion is that the OP did mean exactly what I understood, and now you're here playing silly semantic games in a misguided attempt to attack me in lieu of defending your position.

[whatchamacallit]

160. Bullshit, you misunderstood on purpose because it served you. (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

164. No. It's the clear implication of the OP that all of the concrete was fine dust.

The OP says that there were 180,000 tons of it. The OP asks, where did it go? The OP lists an "average size of particles rang(ing)" in the area of fine dust. The OP presents no evidence that this "average particle size" is actually so.

Ergo, the OP is claiming that all of the concrete was turned into fine dust. You think you see a semantic out. The OP should begin dealing with the larger particles that even the OP's preferred scientists cannot deny. (How do I know that the OP prefers Steven Jones? Because the OP is using slides from the AE911Truth site, and a sizable portion of that slide show comes directly from Steven Jones' own slideshow. They used to use the exact Jones slides until they were reformatted, but the information remained the same.)

[Name removed]

170. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rollingrock]

142. Do you know what average means?

In the article, Jones is referring to only one SPECIFIC sample of the concrete, one that was collected in a very specific location (113 Liberty, across the street from the South Tower). He does not claim it to be otherwise. Nor should he. Obviously, you are going to have variation in sizes in any controlled demolition, depending on where the dust sample is collected. That's what averages are used for.

Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower...Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

[Bolo Boffin]

144. Do you know what busted means?

You are clearly implying that the particle size was fine dust throughout. That's what Hoffman's calculations go for.

What does "average particle size ranges from" mean anyway? An average is one number. You provided a range of numbers. That's not an average. You do know that, don't you?

[rollingrock]

147. Most of it was fine dust

If you don't agree, maybe you should go have your eyes examined.

[Bolo Boffin]

152. The ubiqutious presence of larger size particles shows that your "average range" of sizes

is factually inaccurate. Your OP is full of them, as I've been patiently documenting.

Now you did get a sample of that vast cloud heading across the river so you can actually claim to know its contents? What, you didn't? Hmm.

And what percentage is this cloud drywall dust? Ever worked with drywall? If you have, you know how simply cutting it can release huge clouds of dust. What happens when the drywall is crushed? Does your OP even mention the drywall?

ETA: No, it doesn't. You don't think the drywall was worth mentioning when you talk about the dust coming out of the WTC buildings? Really? You're a little quick to be passing out the fail photographs.

EATA: And are you EVER going to defend and/or document your ludicrous claim that the steel "disappeared"?

[whatchamacallit]

161. Wow the depths of desperation

Sad what a person will believe to avoid the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

163. Got anything to add beside feeble disparaging remarks? No? n/t

[rollingrock]

181. Interesting

So if all those enormous dust clouds which rose hundreds of feet into the air are composed of drywall dust as you claim, then what happened to the concrete?

Where did the 180,000 tons of concrete go? Did it evaporate?

[Bolo Boffin]

182. I did not suggest that drywall was the only component. I was saying that it was also there.

And are you EVER going to document your ludicrous claim that the steel disappeared? Are you ever going to acknowledge the first sentence of your OP ever again?

[rollingrock]

183. Read the OP

it says, "at ground zero, there was almost nothing left remaining of 90,000 tons of concrete from each tower and 400,000 tons of steel." Nowhere do I state that all the steel has disappeared.

[Bolo Boffin]

184. So why are you asking where the steel went in a post about how the concrete was turned to dust???

:rofl:

You're killing me here.

ETA: Could it be -- "That was just there when I cut and pasted this OP" ?

[reinvestigate911]

148. i'd say you were busted based on the emphasis provided by whatchamacallit

in the very quote that you used to claim otherwise.

[whatchamacallit]

149. LOL best fail pic ever! (nt)

[Fainter]

236. Only If "Substantial Pulverization" Rules Out Particles > 1/4 " Square. n/t

[Fainter]

235. And If I Can Produce A Prominent OCT Semanticist Who Says The Concrete Was...

pulverized, will you pull your head out of your ass. How many microns can dance on the head of an OCT pin. You're boring.

[leftofthedial]

24. all you need to know is in the 9-11 Commission Report.

It was no one's fault. That is to say, it was in all ways indistinguishable from magic.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. So far the OP still has not documented

the size of the particles he claims.

that any steel whatsoever disappeared, that ANYTHING is actually missing.

[rollingrock]

186. Some of the materials found in the 9/11 dust

concrete
stairways
computers
computer chips
exotic metals
drywall
furniture
elevator shafts
concrete
carpeting

very small particles, generally on the order of 100 microns

so what kind of energy has the power to reduce everyday objects to powder and dust, almost instantly?

whatever it is, it ain't gravity.

[Bolo Boffin]

187. "very small particles, generally on the order of 100 microns"

Please document this statement.

Please provide a detailed accounting of the percentages of the materials you list in the 9/11 dust.

Please explain how an elevator shaft could be found in the 9/11 dust.

[rollingrock]

188. What size do you expect the particles to be?

Particles that are capable of floating hundreds of feet above the earth in large quantities?
They would have to be pretty damn small, wouldn't they? What is your point?

Not even ordinary natural dirt is capable of doing that, absent hurricane force winds.

[Bolo Boffin]

189. "very small particles, generally on the order of 100 microns" -- Your claim, document it.

Please provide a detailed accounting of the percentages of the materials you list in the 9/11 dust.

Please explain how an elevator shaft could be found in the 9/11 dust.

[rollingrock]

190. See the presentation by Jeff King

the MIT researcher. It's on Google video.

[Bolo Boffin]

191. the electrical engineer that's now a medical doctor, Jeff King?

Mackey deals with a couple of King's claims on pp. 95-96 (pdf 102-103). King does not prove to be a reliable researcher.

I know you can't link to it but you can at least reproduce his reasoning. Please do so. If it doesn't provide the documentation I am asking for, I will not be surprised.

Produce your documentation.

[rollingrock]

192. I already did

if you don't believe what Mr. King has to say or the sources he sites, that's your problem.

but of course for you, anything that contradicts the official fairy tale 'isn't reliable.'

[Bolo Boffin]

193. No, you have not.

Saying Jeff King is not documenting your claims. Produce a simple transcript of where King documents your claims, or retract them.

ETA: Unles Jeff King did original research, then he used sources. Those sources are probably in a place that you can link to them without linking to Holocaust-denying sources. Produce King's documentation of the claims you have made or retract them.

[rollingrock]

194. By your standards, I certainly did

When have you ever produced a transcript? Your response is to always link to the NIST website and never to any particular page in the 10,000 page NIST paper on 9/11 whenever someone asks you to document something.

You can't bother to sit through a 15 minute video but you expect others to scour through a 10,000 page document to find what they're looking for? You make me laugh.

[Bolo Boffin]

195. Just in this thread alone, your claim about my linking is factually inaccurate.

I've linked to several papers, provided pages both in the paper and by the PDF, provided actual quotes, etc.

More documentation of your claims and less dancing, please.

[rollingrock]

197. You have time to sit and debate on an internet forum for 2 to 3 hours

but can't be bothered with viewing a 15 minute video? What gives?

When I asked you to explain how gravity could fling a 4 ton steel girder laterally a distance of 600 feet your response was to 'read the paper already.' You provide a link to a 283 page document but no page numbers. Sorry, but by your (ever wavering) definition, that does not qualify as proper documentation.


More courtesy then you have afforded me:

Jeff King, discussion of 9/11 dust begins at 8:45
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jeff+king+mit&hl=en&emb=1&aq=f#





Edit: It just hit me that you might be on dial-up so you can't see the video even if you wanted to.
If that's the case, my apologies but you should have mentioned it.

[Bolo Boffin]

198. I provided you a link to a DU discussion in which I had

QUOTED that specific part of Mackey's paper (the discussion of ejected material) specifically!

And you have the GALL to accuse me of not clicking on your links??? AMAZING.

ETA: My post #36, in response to you, YOU, I posted this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=172126&mesg_id=172126

It is still there. The exact part of Mackey's paper is right there in that discussion.

[rollingrock]

200. Uhh, that thread is 3 years old

according to the time stamp on it.

I've been a registered member for about one month now and have no idea what's been posted on this forum that long ago.

[Bolo Boffin]

201. Uhh, I provided a link to it in POST 36 OF THIS THREAD.

THAT'S how you could have an idea of what was in this forum.

Please stop playing stupid games.

[rollingrock]

205. hehe

I'm obviously a noob. :hi:

[AZCat]

206. Nahh, Bolo's not the Luddite.

I am, although I don't think I'm the only one who frequents this sub-forum who is still on dial-up.

[rollingrock]

207. Luckily

this site is still pretty fast for dial-up users.

but we switched to $10 broadband just a couple months ago so we could watch internet television.
Most popular shows are streaming on the network websites these days, so who needs a TV? Too much commercials!

[AZCat]

208. I don't have a TV either.

If I could still surf using gopher, I would. Images - who needs them?

[whatchamacallit]

202. Self Delete

---have---to---resist---

[Bolo Boffin]

203. More facts and rational discussion, less personal attack.

A perfect recipe for no Self Delete.

[whatchamacallit]

204. Heh, I'll have to give you that one (nt)

[Old and In the Way]

84. I have a question, hopefully someone can shed some light on it.

Refering to the seismic charts here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

WTC 1 and 2 collapse show peak amplitudes of roughly 200 times nominal. However, the collapse of WTC 7 shows an amplitude of roughly 20X nominal. I have read that the WTC 7 had a mass of between 1/3 to 1/2 that of WTC buildings 1 & 2. (No hard data, just info gleaned from the physics forum and other similar sites). That sounds sensible, given the height of WTC was only about 1/2 as high and had roughly the same floor area.

Anyways, I assume that 2X weight would have an exponential impact on the seismic recording...but would that be 10X higher?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. To be honest, Old, I don't know.

I'd hazard a guess having to do with the volume of material hitting roughly simultaneously, and the longer distances that much of the WTC tower debris had to fall. But it's just a guess.

What I mean by the first: WTC 7 fell in a much more progressive way -- first, the eastern third of the interior fell, then the core ripped out followed swiftly by the perimeter. The towers, however, had a lot of mass going straight down all at once, followed by the core. My explanation could be totally off, however, because I don't know.

[hack89]

87. Why does the author of your slides fail to take the obvious step

and determine how many tons of explosives were needed to make up the energy deficit he "calculates"? Hoffman has always evaded this simple question - probably because the results would be so ridiculously large.

[hack89]

88. A simple test the truth movement failed to to - or did they?

If tons of explosives were used to pulverized the top part of the WTC then all that dust would have been laced with chemical traces of high explosives.

Why did the truth movement fail to gather some samples for testing - I mean it was spread all over Manhattan so it would have been so easy. I think they did - and didn't like the answer so they suppressed the results.

A group actually did put together a chemical signature of the WTC - no sign of high explosives anywhere.

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

[SidDithers]

89. Concrete was not pulverized to dust...

and I can prove you wrong. Question is, will you admit you're wrong when shown the proof?

Sid

[Mist]

91. Not only was most of the concrete pulverized into dust, so were acres of

office furniture, miles of plumbing, and lots of glass.

[rhymeandreason]

90. It is obvious

that something more was at work here than airplane impacts and subsequent fires. It is hard for me to understand how anyone can accept and defend the government story.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. AFAICT, most of these arguments are from Jim Hoffman and have been debunked

by Ryan Mackey in his whitepaper:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Ask questions. Recognize answers.

[rhymeandreason]

96. It is remarkable how you assert your strong opinions as matters of fact.

Have you taken the time to read this?:

Maintaining the Mirage:
A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory
of the Demolition Deniers
A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9; May 18, 2008
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html#dismissive

excerpts:

Mackey's Methods

Mackey's article would be more persuasive to the rational and unbiased reader had he confined himself to the kinds of arguments addressed above. However, his article contains so many unsupported assertions, obviously fallacious arguments, and propagandistic techniques that one has to wonder: is he attempting to hide the weaknesses of his genuine arguments by so heavily loading his article with insults, innuendo, and sweeping conclusions of victory over the "charlatans"; or is he targeting an audience whose pre-disposition to accept the official story overshadows any interest in substantive debate?

Whatever Mackey's motives, a review of his methods that fall outside of the parameters of logical and fact-based arguments is instructive as a case study of how experts are employed to maintain official fictions that underlie great crimes.

Propaganda Rather than Science

Is Mackey's article defending the collapse theory science or propaganda? He certainly tries to equate the collapse theory with science -- and equate critics of it with 'the charlatans'. Let's look at some of his methods to answer this question.

Unscientific language throughout

One need only read a few paragraphs of any part of Mackey's essay to be impressed by his fondness for sweeping statements of fact, unqualified statements, and statements with universal qualifiers. Real scientists seldom make such sweeping statements, because such statements are rarely true.
Dismissive and derogatory language

Throughout his article, Mackey uses dismissive and derogatory language to describe Griffin and anyone questioning the official story. This is reflected in his section titles such as "Legitimate Criticism of the NIST Report", which declares as illegitimate any criticism that questions the collapse premise.

This debate still continues in universities, engineering societies, and NIST itself. But it is important to note that there is an instantly recognizable difference in quality between these differing professional opinions, and those promoted by the Truth Movement ...
p.173

Unqualified praise for the official account

Mackey's essay would be more persuasive to the rational reader if he were less frantic in his support for the collapse theory. In his world, criticism of the official story is "legitimate" as long as it doesn't seriously consider controlled demolition. The collapse theory is agreed to by "responsible scientists" while the controlled demolition theory is sold by "charlatans".

In his world, NIST can do no wrong, having conducted an investigation that is "a part of scientific thinking", and having given us a "meticulous final report", while making their methods and conclusions "available for scrutiny and criticism". But Dr. Griffin is "incorrect in every major detail", making points that "merit no attention whatsoever".

Such stark pronouncements of endorsement and condemnation are the stock and trade of propaganda, not science.

Discrediting through caricature

Mackey's use of propaganda is illustrated in his Introduction, in which he presents an over-simplified caricature of the position articulated by the more credible critics of the official story.

A Pearl Harbor MIHOP theory would require that the Imperial Japanese Navy did not attack at all, but instead that the United States scuttled its own warships or perhaps attacked itself, blaming the attack on an innocent Empire of Japan, in what is frequently termed a "false-flag operation."
p.2

This tortured analogy seems designed to prejudice the reader against considering "MIHOP" theories about the 9/11 attack, whose fundamental differences from Pearl Harbor include the lack of squadrons of clearly identifiable foreign aircraft and the lack of an ongoing war. Mackey's Pearl Harbor "MIHOP" scenario suggests that he doesn't understand the basic concepts of false flag operations, which typically use patsies in order to support a public narrative of the event while controlling the outcome.

Examples of documented false flag operations are mentioned above.

The MIHOP group, on the other hand, contends that the plan was conceived and executed by the United States Government, or at least powerful figures therein, and that the real attacks happened in a completely different fashion, since the MIHOP hypothesis is totally incompatible with al-Qaeda sponsorship.
p.1

Here, Mackey exploits a popular straw man caricature of of alternative theories as blaming a monolithic all-powerful "United States Government", when in reality that entity is vast and complex and comprised mostly of normal, ethical people. Furthermore most challengers of the official WTC collapse theory don't subscribe to Mackey's false dichotomy between al Qaeda involvement and orchestration by insiders.

The oft-cited "LIHOP" versus "MIHOP" classification functions in several ways. In the hands of debunkers like Mackey, it over-simplifies the likely alternative scenarios into cartoon stereotypes in which "MIHOP" bundles serious challenges to the official collapse theory with the most absurd theories of the attack, such as that missile-launching pods equipped the planes that attacked the Twin Towers.

The artificial "LIHOP"/"MIHOP" dichotomy also glosses over the fact that a successful false flag operation necessarily involves "LIHOP" elements -- from the involvement of patsies, to the acquiescence of officials who allow the attack to proceed, and help to prop up the official narrative in the aftermath.

Mackey's fondness for labeling alternative theories, and his use of empty characterizations like "dizzying diversity of beliefs", "Truth Movement folklore", and "magnet for conspiracy theories" is divorced from contextual historical realities of documented false pretexts for war.

Mackey continues with his caricature:

Dr. Griffin and many of his colleagues have adopted the argument that, since they are merely questioning a theory rather than presenting one of their own, only a single question must be correct (that is to say, "unanswered," as a question contains no veracity on its own by definition) in order to disprove the so-called "official theory" of the September 11th attacks. This is illogical and scientifically unsound.
p.4

Here, Mackey falsely reframes challengers of the official story as assuming for themselves a ridiculously small burden of proof, providing no examples to support his blithe assertion. To see how distorted Mackey's description of Griffin's methods are, just read the excerpt from Omissions and Distortions in which Griffin makes a persuasive argument for the theory of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Baseless Assertions

This section lists some examples of Mackey's many errors of fact and unsupported conclusions. It does not begin to address the breadth of such errors, nor any of the new batch of errors provided by Version 2 of his essay.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. The Mackey paper I linked to thoroughly debunks the Hoffman paper you refer to

There's a lengthy appendix dealing just with that rebuttal from Hoffman. Try again.

[wildbilln864]

103. excellent! Thank you.

:hi:
Mackey is a tool.

[whatchamacallit]

104. If I've learned anything in here

it's that you can always find someone to advance some twisted theory to deny the obvious. Ever notice how the much-ridiculed CD theory is the most unified theory? We see explosive flashes and squibs, we watch the buildings fall straight down at nearly free-fall speed into their own footprints, we notice the size and uniformity of the rubble... Whether you believe CD or not, at least these observations fit together and in a way that supports the general theory.

Contrast that with byzantine patchwork of off-the-cuff explanations and excuses concocted to explain-away the various, persistent, clues that the buildings were demoed. If listed together and examined as a whole, it becomes obvious these explanations are isolated, custom concepts that fit into no greater theory. In other words, they are a grab bag of bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

105. How anyone can watch videos of WTC 1 & 2 as they spew debris...

for hundreds of feet, severely damaging nearby buildings and cobnclude they'll fell within their own foortprint is beyond me. Maybe YOU'RE the one that needs a lesson in the obvious.

[whatchamacallit]

108. Well let's just say they didn't fall over

Any process engineered to bring down structures of that size and design is bound to be way more messy than your garden variety CD. What I see when I look at the birds eye view of the debris, is a total mess that miraculously didn't destroy whole city blocks.

[SDuderstadt]

117. So, now you're admitting that they.....

DIDN'[T collapse into their own footprints. Do I have that right?

[whatchamacallit]

141. No they did, as much as possible given the nature and scope of the job (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

106. I am laughing my ass off, quite literally, at your post -- CD is the most unified theory?

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to spell out this unified theory. How many charges? Where were they placed? How were they set off? How did they manage to avoid producing any explosive signature on the seismographs while all these charges were blowing crap all over Manhattan?

We have been begging the Truth Movement CD advocates to produce a unified theory. David Ray Griffin, that shuckster prophet, cautions his people to never produce an actual theory as to what happened. And now you're here claiming that you've got one?

You're trying to kill us off with laughter, aren't you? Sneaky, sneaky.

[whatchamacallit]

109. Like I said

I'm sure I could find a "Mackey" to posit all manner of possible theories on the things you mention. And without the ability to know the exact whereabouts of all the potential players at all times leading up to 911, you'd be unable to disprove it. That's exactly how the OCT functions.

edit: Oh yeah and I'd make sure to refer to all of his theories as facts, just like you do.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. I love the sound of backpedeling in the morning.

:rofl:

[whatchamacallit]

111. How am I backpedeling?

That assessment is like all your others; pulled straight out of your arrogant ass and sold as gold.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. LOL, all this talk about a unified CD theory and all this talk about an expert pushing it

and not a lick of actually POSTING it or him or her.

:rofl:

You COULD post a unified theory, you could post an expert pushing it, iff'n you wanted to...

I'm sorry, I couldn't make anything else out. You're retreating into the distance.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. For the record, you didn't provide a unified theory OR an expert pushing it.

I understand that backpedaling helps your calf muscles out a lot.

[rhymeandreason]

118. Reading over some of the ludicrous and incredible arguments

defending and promoting the Official Government Conspiracy Theory, I am reminded of the work of the Flat Earth Society:

Why a Flat Earth?
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm

excerpt:
Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space

1) The ether factor

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

Argument Two - Difficulties with the model: incorporating an Efimovich-type model with the known Universe

1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world

A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.

Argument Three - The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. That's all well and good. Would you mind too terribly much actually disproving Mackey's arguments?

kthaxbye

[rhymeandreason]

120. AFAIC Jim Hoffman has already shown

Mackey's arguments to be fallacious. But, again, that's just my opinion.

[Bolo Boffin]

122. And you seemed to have missed the part... wait, let me spell it out for you

Small words.

I posted a paper written by Ryan Mackey. You posted a paper written by Jim Hoffman.

The paper you posted was Hoffman's rebuttal of Mackey's original paper. However, I posted the most recent version of Mackey's paper. In it, he includes a lengthy demonstration that Hoffman's rebuttal is not worth the electromagnetic impulses carrying it along the Internet.

You see what happened? You posted a paper as a rebuttal to Mackey's original paper, but Mackey has already had dealt with its flimsy logic and prejudicial language. You posted a paper that my paper had already dealt with. (Proving of course that you didn't even click and read the paper I'd linked to, but simply kneejerked a link to Hoffman.)

Hoffman was responding to an earlier version of Mackey's paper. Rather than rewriting, Mackey simply wrote an appendix dealing with the rebuttal Hoffman wrote and you linked to. That was already present in the paper I had linked.

Do you understand? I posted a paper in which Mackey said "X, and when Hoffman says Y, he's wrong because of A, B, and C." You then posted a paper in which Hoffman said, "Y." You haven't proven your point.

Since you think Hoffman was right, it should be EASY for you to produce a single point in which you think he showed Mackey wrong. Careful though! I'm going to go to the original paper I posted and show how Mackey deals with Hoffman's point and why Hoffman is wrong.

So it might behoove you to READ THE PAPER, ALREADY.

[rhymeandreason]

124. Mackey's "paper' reads like a RW rant.

I read it when it came out and I just can't take any part of it seriously. It would be like asking me, a lifelong liberal and Democrat, "Just tell me what part of Rush Limbaugh's show didn't you like?".

If you want the details on what is wrong with Mackey's work you need only read Hoffman's critique.

For example:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html#explosive_events

Explosive Features

Explosive events, such as blast waves, energetic jets of dust, exploding clouds of dust, steel assemblies flying hundreds of feet in all directions, and thorough pulverization of debris are all direct evidence of explosives and controlled demolition.

Mackey deals with some of these explosive features through a combination to two misleading tactics:

* By pretending that detonations in a demolition would be visible and audible as distinct events.
* By simply denying the many explosive features that are abundantly documented.

Had explosives been used to disintegrate the upper block at this juncture, however, we would expect to see and hear visible evidence of their use, including shock waves, shrapnel, and possibly bright flashes. Explosives large enough to instantaneously pulverize 25,000 tons or more of structure would be difficult to mistake. This speculation of Dr. Jones is totally unsupported and of little value.

p.56

Here, Mackey makes multiple false assumptions, including:

* That all high explosives have a bright flash. Some conventional explosives don't, and a thermobaric explosive using hydrogen detonates with a flash that's invisible in daylight.
* That there is no evidence of flashes. In fact, small flashes are visible in the South Tower destruction, and there a number of specific credible reports of flashes in the oral histories of emergency responders.
* That the pulverization of concrete could not have been produced without explosives of high bristicity. Given the moisture content of concrete, elevating it to a sufficient temperature would cause explosive spalling. If large quantities of aluminothermics were used to sever structural members, the excess heat could have caused such spalling.
* That there were no shockwaves or shrapnel. In fact, there were overpressures sufficient to puncture windows of buildings several hundred feet from the Towers, and the Towers were largely reduced to "shrapnel".
* That the detonation of numerous explosives would appear as a single point-source blast.

Comments: Gypsum crushes readily. We may also be looking at smoke. Cameras and lighting alter shades of grey, and the video stills on Hoffman's site are of extremely low quality.
p.90

Here Mackey attempts to dismiss the undeniable evidence of high-velocity jets of dust by complaining about the quality of the images on this page. This sequence of frames referenced on that page is of sufficient quality to measure the velocity of the dust ejections from the North Tower's west face, and that velocity is at least 100 feet per second.

Comments: The "piston theory" does not require an orderly pancaking, nor does it require that floors would survive later events as the Towers continued to collapse. Any mechanical motion will create the pressurization in the Towers, whether orderly or not, whether complete floors or only portions thereof.
p.91

Hoffman's analysis corresponds with the visual evidence and with the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses while Mackey seems to be tailoring his argument to fit the NIST analysis.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. You have completely ignored that Mackey's paper has already dealt with this silly rebuttal

Beginning on page 246 (pdf 253) and continuing through page 248 (pdf 255) of the paper I linked to, the paper that started this whole subthread, Mackey treats the section of Hoffman's rebuttal that you just quoted. Do you understand this? You have linked to a paper that is already obsolete in the discussion!

A section from this discussion by Mackey:

In this section, Mr. Hoffman attempts to rescue his theory of explosives by proposing ideas that explain away the missing features of such explosions. In general, there is nothing inherently wrong with speculating to complete a hypothesis, but one must take care to reconcile these speculations with all of the available evidence. Mr. Hoffman’s ideas do not satisfy this requirement, as explored below...

...2. There is no evidence of flashes. Various conspiracy theorists have claimed to see flashes that are in fact compression artifacts on low-quality video copies, reflections from glass and the aluminum cladding, and so on, but there are none that are consistent with explosives. Dr. Griffin and others also reference the statements of firefighter Stephen Gregory, but as we saw on pages 69-70, this cannot be an explosive, and Mr. Gregory even stated that he did not think it was an explosive.

3. The author has already raised the possibility of heat degrading the concrete to spall, on pages 94-95. However, this only applies on the fire floors. Unlike the author, Mr. Hoffman proposes a much greater volume of concrete was pulverized, and for concrete outside the fire floors, such heating must have been done in a matter of seconds. This is impossible, even if we disregard the flashes and smoke that would be created by such an incredible volume of "aluminothermics" required to provide such a surplus of waste heat.

...5. Even if explosive charges were distributed – which is typical of an ordinary controlled demolition – they would still be both visible and audible. If we assume Mr. Trumpman’s estimate (taken from Mr. Hoffman’s site) is accurate, we are supposing about 1,400 kg of high explosives were detonated on a single floor of only 64 meters square. By comparison, a standard military cluster bomb <339> carries 1000 pounds of payload (only a fraction of which is explosives) and typically distributes this into an area 200 by 400 meters. The effect in the World Trade Center would be similar to exploding three unusually powerful cluster bombs at once in an area 19 times smaller than usual. There is no way for this to have gone unnoticed and unheard in every single record of the event.

I would quote the whole thing, but that's against the rules of DU. I have quoted enough for the disinterested reader to see which person is relying on speculation and wild guesses, and which is dealing with facts and rationality.

[OnTheOtherHand]

155. how so?

My guess is that if we took any ten excerpts from Mackey, and any ten excerpts from Limbaugh, the vast majority of DUers would have no trouble telling the difference.

One may dispute that "Explosives large enough to instantaneously pulverize 25,000 tons or more of structure would be difficult to mistake" -- and hey, maybe that isn't true. But it doesn't "read() like a RW rant" to me. You?

Incidentally, the assumption "(t)hat the detonation of numerous explosives would appear as a single point-source blast" seems to be entirely Hoffman's, not Mackey's, and I'm not sure that Mackey makes the other assumptions either. Based on this excerpt, I would be surprised if Hoffman has the better of the argument.

[rhymeandreason]

215. The similarity lies in the tone,

the sarcasm, use of caricature and derogatory language.

[Bolo Boffin]

216. Because RW rants have an absolute monopoly on sarcasm, caricature, and derogatory language

And this is not saying that Mackey's paper has any of that. It's just pointing out, once again, your post's shoddy logic.

ETA: And considering that the OP is taken from AE911Truth, a group founded by a right-wing Republican (Richard Gage), this criticism of yours is especially interesting.

[rhymeandreason]

219. If Mr. Mackey or anyone is seriously interested in

persuading me of the merits of their point of view, the use of sarcasm, condescension and derogation is going to simply alienate and annoy me.

Do you have a source to substantiate your assertions concerning Gage?

[Bolo Boffin]

221. Who cares what you think?

Why do you think this is about persuading you? I doubt that could be done. But providing an tonic to your silly posts here? That's all well and good.

And OF COURSE I have sources to substantiate my assertion concerning Gage. A PDF from his very own website:

http://www.ae911truth.org/events/eurotour/docs/lecourier_english.pdf

"Gage admits he long voted Republican before confronting the lies of the Bush Administration."

And from a Florida 9/11 Truth group:

http://gators911truth.org/PDF/Letter-to-Lindorff.PDF

"Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth.org admits he is a Reagan Republican..."

ETA: Now tell me, if Richard Gage was to engage in sarcasm and derogatory language, would that tend to degrade his message in your estimation? Why or why not?

[OnTheOtherHand]

217. I don't think that claim could survive empirical investigation

You may feel that Mackey is unfair to the authors he criticizes -- and in some cases, you may even be right. But as I've said, I doubt that many DUers other than you would have any trouble distinguishing his tone from Limbaugh's.

It does make me wonder what you think you know about Limbaugh.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. BTW, if my assertions aren't facts, it should be easy for you to point out how Mackey didn't rebut

Hoffman's critique. Have at it. The floor is yours.

[rhymeandreason]

114. Obviously we differ on this.

In your opinion Mackey has conclusively debunked Hoffman and in my opinion Hoffman's work is more scientific, more credible and vastly more persuasive than Mackey's.

But the pictures in the OP really speak for themselves. They reflect the effects of massive explosive forces.



"You have two 110 story office buildings, you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone a computer the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big (makes hand gesture)...the building collapsed to dust."

-Joe Casaliggi, Engine 7, FDNY firefighter at ground zero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSueQsVsk_M

[Bolo Boffin]

116. And I am happy to let the disinterested reader decide for themselves

who knows more about what they speak, the NASA engineer or the software engineer.

[reinvestigate911]

121. who's got who on whose payroll?

[Bolo Boffin]

123. There I go, back on third base again. n/t

[reinvestigate911]

126. with all due reaspect, sir

you seem to put a great deal of faith in a government

• who ignored warnings that could have prevented 9/11 from happening in the first place
  
• who lied on at least two versions of NORAD's response to 9/11
  
• who lied about the air quality at ground zero
  
• whose president and vice president refused to go on the record (not just under oath, but ANY record) regarding 9/11
  
• who lied about its domestic spy program
  
• who lied about weapons of mass destruction
  
• who fabricated evidence to make a case for weapons of mass destruction
  
• who kills an http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/">average 17,000 iraq civilians each year during its illegal occupation
  
• who suppressed evidence about mercury poisioning
  
• who allegedly employs scientists who send weaponized anthrax through the mail to send political messages (definition of an inside job? oh but wait, of course... he acted alone!)
  
• who tortures
  
• who lied in an effort to coverup torture
  
• who lies to support its policies on torture
  
• who lies about iran's alleged "nuclear weapons program"
  
• who lied to coverup its response to hurricane katrina
  
• who has destroyed a legacy of environmental programs
  
• whose reckless fiscal policies and deregulation of wall street led to the largest financial crisis this country has ever seen
  

let's also not forget that the above items were for just the former administration alone, upon whose watch 9/11 occurred on... however, we also the ONLY country to have ever used nuclear weapons offensively -- and on a civilian population -- not just once, but twice.

so please, spare us the arrogant, self-righteous piety.

[Bolo Boffin]

133. You seem to think that the government is the only source of information about 9/11

Which Is Ludicrous.

List the number of your itemized things that NIST participated in.

The unitary executive theory has gone to your head. The government is not a monolithic being.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reinvestigate911]

150. once more

[leftofthedial]

151. king george rounded up a couple of frat pledges

and made them snort it.

[whatchamacallit]

173. LOL!

[rhymeandreason]

218. Here is the video of Fort Worth's Landmark Tower being imploded.

It is amazing how closely it resembles the collapse of the WTC towers, right down to the slight tilt of the top floors and the voluminous clouds of dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U



LANDMARK TOWER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground.

[SDuderstadt]

220. Did you LISTEN to the clip???

Did you notice the deafening blasts BEFORE the building came down?? Was anything at all like that heard on 9/11?? Hint: no. Did you notice that the collapse started at the BOTTOM of the building?You just provided more proof it WASN'T a controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

222. Speaking of that --

Here's a video of the Oslo, Norway building that is still being used as an example of controlled demolition in the AE911Truth slideshow (from which the slides in the OP were taken).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

AE911Truth actually used a manipulated soundtrack to make it appear that the explosions were non-existent here. After I called them on it, they stopped this egregious lie. But even today you will not hear the clear sounds of this controlled demolition. They use the muddiest soundtrack available, if they even use one.

AE911Truth: big on VISUAL identification, but very, very nervous when it comes to AUDIO identification.

[rhymeandreason]

223. Actually explosions were heard on 9/11.

Explosions were heard by numerous eyewitness which were documented by the New York Times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

Prior to the release of the oral histories, eyewitness reports with descriptions of the World Trade Center building collapses came from a variety of diverse sources, such as mainstream media, documentaries, and the Web.

Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly:

I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York, recalled events in the South Tower:

When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:

I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.
...
As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

And there is certainly an explosion in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

And there are the accounts of explosions from the late Barry Jennings, WTC7 Head of Security:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1

[SDuderstadt]

224. There are many sources of explosions....

and many of them are not bombs. In any event, I believe it's safe to say that the explosions were not sequential as we hear in the clip of the controlled demolition. A building rigged for controlled demolition gives off a very specific sound signature (for lack of a better word) that is unmistakable. I think if you'd also check the full quote of some of the witnesses you cited, you'd find that some of them actually said that they heard what they thought were bombs, then went on to add that they knew it was not a bomb. More importantly, not only can you not find a single CD expert (other than the hapless Danny Jowenko, who was manipulated by his interviewers) who say it was CD, you have a number of them emphatically stating the opposite. Google Brent Blanchard of Implosion World, for example.

Again, explosion does not necessarily = bomb.

[rhymeandreason]

225. Actually it looks like the buildings were exploding,

there is ejecta weighing many tons which was hurled hundreds of feet, it sounds like the buildings were exploding, eyewitnesses heard explosions and the smoking debris piles of scorched, torn, fractured and pulverized steel look like the results of a massive explosion. But these weren't explosions???? :o

[Bolo Boffin]

226. There were no sounds of explosions consistent with hurling ejecta hundreds of feet.

There must be some other explanation for the debris being hurled.

Do you understand this? The recorded sounds of these buildings were quite loud, but they were not consistent with the necessary amount of explosives needed to hurl debris. There were no ear injuries to people consistent with the amount of explosives necessary to do this. There must be another explanation for this debris.

And there is.

Let's start off with a simple thing: the evidence underlying your assertion. Let's all get on the same page. Point out some examples of what you say is "ejecta weighing many tons which was hurled hundreds of feet." This is a simple request. All you have to do is provide a few pictures so we can all agree what it is we are looking at. I expect that you will be able to do this in your next post on this issue.

[rhymeandreason]

227. How do you know what the explosions were like?

Were you there? The eyewitnesses thought they were quite loud, they thought there were bombs.

And the explosion on the "Seven's Exploding" posted earlier video is extremely loud.

Here are some examples of the buildings appearing to explode, hurl ejecta and the aftermath:









And here is more eyewitness testimony from the NYT FDNY oral histories:

http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.)
But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
... and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
...
I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.

James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.

Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
...
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.

Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.

Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.

Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.

James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running.

Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino

Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.

Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.

Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.

Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder ...

John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.

Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.

Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.

Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.

Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.

William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us ...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[SDuderstadt]

229. I think you've fallen victim to "clipped" quotes....

The site below does a pretty good job of showing how what many people said has been trucated to give a different meaning than what the speaker actually said. I'd bet if you'd go back and look at the entire quote of the sources you cite, you'd find a similar story.

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

[Bolo Boffin]

237. Because I have heard recordings of these buildings fallen down.

Because I have read accounts of them.

Because I have read studies of the physical evidence by those qualified to judge it.

First, let's deal with your distractions. The "Seven's Exploding" video was filmed about 15 minutes after WTC 1 fell. This is evident from the dust in the air and the way light is shining in the picture. There were only two times on September 11, 2001 when light could have shone down the street the way it was, and because of the way the shadows are being thrown, it can only be the first of those times: 10:45 a.m. This is also supported by what the firefighter ACTUALLY said, which is, "The city's exploding." Not Seven, City.

Eyewitnesses thought they were hearing bombs. But they weren't. The collapses of all these buildings were captured on several seismographs. People trained to document controlled demolitions with seismograph recordings examined these record. There were no characteristic signature of explosive devices exploding on these seismographs. There was only the collapse of the building. This is positive evidence that precludes explosive devices in the towers and 7. They were not there. If they had been there, the seismographs would have recorded them. The seismographs do not record them. Therefore they were not there.

So you can list a long cherry-picked list of people who thought they heard explosive devices or who just heard explosions. It doesn't matter. It's not material to what we are discussing. All of it, the reference to the video, the laundry list, and the idiotic assertion that because I wasn't there, my ability to contribute to the discussion is decreased (were you there?) -- all of it is distraction.

You have provided what I asked for: evidence of what you think is immensely heavy ejecta hurled hundreds of feet from the collapses.

Let's look at your pictures.



Your second picture:



The white, single-column aluminum cladding is really unmistakable here. There is a long stretch of perimeter columns, though, right there in the lower part of the picture. They are, amazingly though, lined up one after the other. It's almost as if they were not hurled there, but that the perimeter wall peeled off the side and fell out.

Well, that's exactly what happened. When the upper mass fell through the building, it ripped away the floor connections to both the perimeter and the core. The perimeter column sections had nowhere to go but out, peeling out from the building. The core actually stood for a few second more before breaking off at the base and crushing itself up.

I can't see any example of heavy ejecta being hurled hundreds of feet here. I see the light aluminum cladding all over the place. I see the perimeter columns all lined up as they fell when they peeled off and out and down. But that's not being hurled by explosives. That's the way you'd expect an unsupported steel grid to fall.

Also in the lower left, you can see lots of core column sections, big ones from lower in the building, all broken apart. Someone was here before saying that there were no core columns in the debris. Well, there they are. But that wasn't you. Let's move on.

Third picture:



The main part of this picture is the lower seven floors of the northern perimeter columns of WTC1. But they haven't gone anywhere. They are leaning, but the columns are still connected to the ground. All of the perimeter column sections up against them are actually inside the footprint. They haven't been hurled anywhere. There are some pieces in WTC 6, just behind the large section of WTC 1, but WTC 6 is hardly "hundreds of feet" from WTC 1. It's right there.



See? That building being dwarfed by WTC 1's shadow? That's WTC 7. WTC 6 is down below, between those two buildings.

So once again, this is not a picture of heavy ejecta being hurled hundreds of feet. If you think you can see some, point it out. Load these bad boys into Paint and circle it. It's not there.

I'm going to have to insist that you do this. Throwing some pictures up like this is more like handwaving away the problem, and combined with your distractions, it doesn't make you look too good. Show us the examples of heavy ejecta hurled hundreds of feet, and then we can discuss Mackey's calculations.

But first, I insist we get on the same page. Let's actually get some evidence of this phenomenon you claim happened during the collapses and then we'll discuss how it might or might not have happened.

Oh, yes, one more picture:



We'd actually talked about the WFC buildings before, so I'm really disappointed that you used them as an example. Plus, your photo there on the left was used in one of AE911Truth's more deceptive slides.



It's really easy to pretend those perimeter column sections were hurled that far when the workers at the Pile have already cleared away the perimeter columns in between that show they just peeled out to get there. AE911Truth uses this photograph to lie, rhymeandreason, and perhaps they used it to lie to you. But since you now understand just how factually inaccurate this use of the photograph is, I'm sure that you will not be using it like this anymore.

[rhymeandreason]

238. Bolo Boffin, you are kidding yourself,

your arguments don't make any sense whatsoever, they fly in the face of all of the available evidence. What is obvious, notwithstanding your logical contortions and twisted sense of physics, is that these buildings were destroyed with some massive explosive force other than airplane impacts.

The eyewitnesses weren't hearing what they thought they were hearing? -- what absolutely preposterous nonsense. It seems to me that the members of the FDNY knew very well what they were hearing.

Surely I am not the first to break the news to you, but it wasn't solely the aircraft and the nineteen Muslim fanatics that destroyed these buildings, but it obviously was something else entirely.

[Bolo Boffin]

239. Translation: you're running from the discussion.

It should be easy to show pictures of this heavy ejecta hurled hundreds of feet but you have not. When I show that you haven't, picture by picture, you simply state your conclusion again, provide no further evidence, and off you go. Since you provide no evidence for your statements, there is nothing left to think but that these are simply faith-based statements you're making.

[rhymeandreason]

240. This is fascinating,

in the context of the WTC7 discussion, you claim massive ejecta tore a hole the length of WTC7, which was three hundred feet away from the nearest tower, but in discussing the exploding towers you find that there were no far flung ejecta. Perhaps if you could provide us with a picture of the massive ejecta that eviscerated WTC7 we could clear up the confusion on this issue.

ejecta:


massive ejecta:


a fountain of ejecta and pulverized material being hurled hundreds of feet:


Not much ejecta here because WTC7 simply imploded straight down into this tidy pile:

[Bolo Boffin]

241. Your first picture shows nothing but the lighter, one-column aluminum cladding.

Your second, the heavy ejecta, is indeed huge pieces of the perimeter core, but it is also falling quite close to the building. It's stretching to call it "ejecta" at all. It's simply falling off WTC 2 and hitting the Marriott hotel, which is right there next to the complex.



WTC 2 is right next to the Marriott (WTC 3).

Your "fountain of ejecta" is too far away to make out much, but what can be made out is yet again the single-column aluminum cladding.

Your fourth is again a distraction to WTC 7, which you don't even claim threw ejecta anywhere.

What I find is that you have not presented any evidence yet for your own assertion. The disinterested reader will agree. You claim that all of this heavy ejecta was thrown all over the place, and yet you've only presented evidence of light debris going all over the place, heavy debris falling close to the building, and the sides of the building simply peeling away and falling out. Clearly if there was heavy debris being hurled out, it was much less rare than your rhetoric implies.

You have finally found one place where heavy debris did go quite some distance: the debris that hit WTC 7. Congratulations! You use it to chide me, but I've known about that from the very beginning of this discussion. I've been waiting for you to go there.

So Number 1: You agree with me that this debris did massive damage to WTC 7.

Number 2: I agree with you that this debris traveled hundreds of feet -- three hundred or so. Wow. Now considering how high that debris was, it had quite a few seconds to fall to get to that position. How long does that debris take to smack into WTC 7? Because knowing the distance that it traveled and the time it took to get there, we will know its lateral velocity. And if that lateral velocity is well within the range attributable to a simple ricochet? Guess what?

Ya got nothing.

[rhymeandreason]

245. It certainly is not just aluminum cladding,

particularly the large structural members that are embedded in the adjacent buildings or the long gash in the Bankers Trust building.

I might agree with you that massive ejecta from WTC1 seriously damaged WTC7 but I have yet to see any compelling evidence for this. None of the videos I have seen showing the collapse of WTC1 show ejecta or falling debris impacting on WTC7 and the photos and videos of the south side of WTC7 are too indistinct to be conclusive. But if you can provide a photograph or video of these events which isn't so clouded with smoke and dust that it is wide open to interpretation, if you can find visual evidence for your assertion that massive ejecta from WTC1 traveled three hundred feet to irremediably damage WTC1, I might be persuaded to agree with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

246. And your dancing begins in earnest.

"particularly the large structural members that are embedded in the adjacent buildings"

Which buildings? The WFC buildings? We've covered that. That wasn't caused by material ejected from the building. Got any other examples?

The long gash in the Bankers Trust building? The closer-to-WTC-2-than-7-was-to-WTC-1 Bankers Trust building?



Ah, gee. Once again, when you look at the ground in front of the Bankers Trust building, there's that telltale trail of perimeter columns that shows the damage is due to the peeling out and not to ejected debris.

So you find yourself in the unenviable position of have to deny the only actual example of heavy debris being ejected from a tower collapse because you have to deny that the debris could have caused severe damage to 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feature=channel_page

That's a little Youtube video I prepared to show just that, and the severe damage caused to 7 as a result. Let me know when you're ready to discuss how this could have happened.

[rhymeandreason]

256. Bankers Trust was much closer than 7

and it didn't fall down... Still, Chris Boyle's testimony is compelling as are some of the photos in the video you posted. I haven't had time to research this but it really does look like 7 may have suffered catastrophic damage. I still don't understand why off-center damage in the towers and WTC7 could have resulted in vertical collapse. I am aware though, of the unique ad hoc structural elements in 7 although I don't fully understand it.

[Bolo Boffin]

257. 7 suffered some bad damage, and it affected how it fell

But NIST's computer modeling showed that the damage didn't cause the building to fall. They ran several scenarios after they meticulously put together damage and fire assessments based on all the video and photographic record they could find. One was with all documentable damage and a lesser degree of fire-induced damage. The building model did not collapse. However, when they ran the model with no damage whatsoever and the same degree of fire-induced damage, the building still fell. It fell in a different sequence of events, but it still fell.

And a recent discovery of 7 video shows that the building fell to the south after that initial drop. That's what I mean by the damage affecting how it fell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0&feature=channel_page

NIST discovered that even just removing a section of 79 between floors 11 and 13 was enough to cause a total collapse of the building. The damage done by the WTC 1 debris didn't get close to 79, but the fires that it started in the lower floors of the building (and that were unfought by either firefighters or sprinklers) did manage to reach 79. When thermal expansion caused a local collapse that left 79 unsupported over several floors, the building's fate was sealed.

[SDuderstadt]

228. Read my post again.....

especially where I said there are many sources of explosions but that explosion does not equal bombs. Many things inside buildings will explode when subjected the right stimulus, such as emergency fuel tanks, office equipment, etc. Also, if you look at the design and construction of the WTC, it shouldn't surprise you that the building peeled out (for lack of a better phrase) the way that it did.

Did you get my point about how controlled demolition collapse starts at the bottom of the building? The key in controlled demolition is to remove the right supports, then let gravity do the rest. On top of that, listen/watch as many controlled demolition videos as you want and pay particularly close attention to the deafening, sequential boom-boom-boom which precedes by seconds the actual collapse initiation of the building. There are many unanswered questions about 9/11. Whether the Towers were subjected to a controlled demolition isn't one of them.

[rhymeandreason]

230. Once was enough,

it doesn't make any sense to me. Your explanation seems contrived and unlikely, as though you are grasping a straws. I am unpersuaded. For me the photos, videos and the oral testimonies make it obvious that some type of explosive agent(s) were used to destroy these buildings.

[SDuderstadt]

231. Please tell me how "explosions don't necessarily equal bombs" is...

contrived and unlikely when it's the truth. Your personal incredulity is not the yardstick here. In the meantime, please find ANY rescue/recovery worker/team who reported finding any residue form bombs...no detonators, det cord, nada. In fact, some CD teams assisted with the cleanup and reported finding nothing whatsoever of aftermath of any bombs. Now, if they actually did find such evidence, are you suggesting they covered it up? As far as the photos, videos, etc making it "perfectly obvious" to you that explosive agents were used, why do controlled demolition experts say differently? Again, google Breant Blanchard of ImplosionWorld and see what he had to say about it.

[whatchamacallit]

234. When the OCT needs it to be bombs it is, when they dont it's not.

Simple.

[SDuderstadt]

242. Please show me where the "OCT"....

"needs it to be bombs". To my knowledge, the "OCT" never relies on bombs at all. I'd love you to prove me wrong. Please be spcific.

[whatchamacallit]

232. Ha, I love it

"It wasn't CD cuz there were no explosions... Oh there were explosions?... well not all explosions are bombs...":eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

243. This is another ne of your stupid strawman arguments....

Please show me where I said there were no explosions. Be specific.

[Pharaoh]

247. Rock on Man!

K&R!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

248. Well, K anyway.

All the way from number 4 to number 1, so thanks for that.

[Pharaoh]

249. PS

some of these posters in the dungeon, and maybe I'm just now catching on..........

seem to be well, just plants and distractions,

I've been finding more and more of that on good message boards,

Right wings plants, and I'm not naming names...


But really, capitalism is collapsing and the ways they control information are soon coming to an end.

So, I am hopeful that people look into these things for themselves...

[Bolo Boffin]

250. "Right wings plants"

:rofl:

Did you know that the OP is virtually cut and pasted from the website Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Did you know that the founder member, Richard Gage, openly admits to being a Reagan Republican?

Did you know that a large chunk of their slideshow is from Steven Jones, the equally right wing Mormon?

And you say that people arguing for the OCT are right wing plants?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dflprincess]

252. Only one pulverized file cabinet found

along with all the other destruction and we're suppose to believe one hijacker's intact passport found on the ground. Amazing. :sarcasm:

[Bolo Boffin]

253. Do you know that the passport was found before either tower fell?

Guess you didn't. Lots of small items like that were on the ground after the explosion of the plane impact. And before you trot out the old pristine thing, it wasn't. It was damaged.

[Pharaoh]

254. Oh yeah, that's right

Actually Bush/Cheney said so, so it must be true.

Actually I think the people that question the Bush Admins account of that day must be delusional......:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

255. Did Bush or Cheney ever mention the passport, ever, ever?

Hmm. I must have missed that. Would you mind sourcing such an interesting claim... oh, where are you going? Don't you want to back up your statements with facts?

He's gone. Oh, well.

[SDuderstadt]

258. It wasn't Bush/Cheney...

It was the NYPD. I suppose they're in on it too?

[rollingrock]

259. Do you know of any other passports recovered at WTC?

that is, those belonging to other passengers on board the planes?

surely, if one passport was found at the site then there had to be others?

[Bolo Boffin]

260. What frickin' difference does that make?

If no other passports were recovered, does that mean that the one they did wasn't somehow?

Please think before posting.

[rollingrock]

261. Just another coincidence?

...so out of a total of 137 passengers aboard the planes that struck the towers, the only passport to have been recovered at the scene happened to be that of the lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta? Wow, how convenient for the investigators eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

262. Factual inaccuracies, one after another

Why would domestic passengers take their passports on a domestic flight, rollingrock? Please THINK before you post.

Also, it wasn't a passport of Atta's discovered. If they have his, it was because it was in his luggage and his luggage didn't make it onboard Flight 11. RESEARCH before you post.

[rollingrock]

264. How many international passengers were on board the planes?

There are usually plenty of foreign passengers traveling between Boston and Los Angeles.
These are two of the busiest international airports in the world.

[SDuderstadt]

266. Oh, brother.....you're kidding, right?

Don't you think it far more likely that almost all of the passengers were domestic passengers? Are you suggesting that a majority (or even substantial minority) of passengers on a domestic flight are foreign nationals? Really? I 'll echo what Bolo said: "Think before you post!". While you're at it, for grins, why don't you research the passenger manifest for the flight and tell us how many were foreign nationals?

[rollingrock]

267. Passengers don't have to be foreign, necessarily

to carry their passports on a domestic flight. There could be any number of reasons. Your ultimate destination could be a foreign country and LAX is a transfer point for you, for example, which is common for business travelers and tourists.

[Bolo Boffin]

268. You keep dreaming. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

269. Which is pure speculation on your part....

as opposed to the fact that we know foreign nationals would have had to be carrying their passports. Do you have any evodence at all that domestic passengers were traveling to LA to catch an overseas flight? Again, you provide no evidence of your claim, but pull the usual CT "well, it's possible, so it must have happened" BS. You just think it's a remarkable coincidence that one of the hijacker's passports was the one that was found. Isn't that rather like expressing amazement that a bank robber happened to leave fingerprints at the scense of crime?

[Pharaoh]

271. Dear Rolling rock

I have come to the conclusion this 911 forum is a total joke.

These people have their minds made up and are just here to shout you down, and convince other people that anyone who questions the official story is a nutjob.

No matter what you say, they will tell you you are an idiot, do some research, blah blah blah.

Best to leave them to their delusions. This is not a legitimate discussion board for 911.

Sad but true.

[AZCat]

272. That would be a poorly-formed conclusion. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

273. "No matter what you say" -- This is not true.

Present facts, rational arguments, or reasonable interpretations, and I for one will not call you an idiot (something I wouldn't do anyway, it's against the rules), or tell you to do research, blah blah blah.

Present factual inaccuracies, poorly thought out arguments, and ludicrous interpretations, and I will stand up to you. Because DU is better than that. DU is better than this OP based on factual inaccuracies and baseless assertions, cut and pasted from a snake oil website that uses lies and deception to raise money. And I will be here to remind you of it every day.

You say that this is not a legitimate discussion board for 9/11. I say a commitment to facts, rational arguments, and reasonable interpretations is where a legitimate discussion board for 9/11 should start. If you were truly interested in a legitimate discussion board for 9/11, you would agree and you would start presenting facts, rational arguments, and reasonable interpretations. But instead you slander every person who insists on these things.

Sad but true.

[SDuderstadt]

274. Yeah, why don't you go somewhere where no one will challenge your positions and ask you for ....

evidence. Unless you really want debate. I find it amazing how the "9/11 truth movement" regards anyone who takes issue with their lapses in thinking as being here just to "shout (them) down". It's really pathetic, If anything, really vigorous debate would be a boon to the "truth movement" if there was really something there. Instead, after 7 + years, we see the same myths propounded over and over.

[rollingrock]

275. I don't mind it

when confronting orthodoxy, I've learned to expect there is always going to be a very strong and intense resistance to any sort of dissent to that orthodoxy. they're going to play gotcha! games while throwing every name in the book at you in an attempt to shut you down, but you can't let it bother you. you gotta keep fighting the good fight no matter what.

[Bolo Boffin]

276. There is an inverse relationship between how you describe this thread

and what actually appears above.

[SDuderstadt]

277. It's kinda silly to refer to science as....

"orthodoxy". Although I'm certain that you think of yourself as a rebel or in on something the rest of us with orthodoxy-plagued brains, the science actually supports us. When you have concrete evidence of your claims instead of previously debunked, recycled myths, you might get somewhere.

[rollingrock]

278. The official story has been debunked over and over

and there is nothing scientific about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

279. Again, an inverse relationship between what you say and what is revealed in this thread

is very, very apparent.

[SDuderstadt]

280. What bullshit.....

if you honestly think you've "debunked" ASCE, I can't help you.

[smiley]

281. So true Pharoah.

I've been visiting this forum for over 3 years now and it has gotten completely out of control. I started putting people on ignore because I got tired of wading through their b.s.

I have 8 people on ignore now and I can barely ever read a thread that doesn't have more than half of the posters ignored. They have taken over what used to be a very informative site. It's disheartening that the mods of have yet to notice this and have yet to ban these users from the site.

But generally speaking, people who actually post topics to discuss are offering interesting information. I read the OP and very rarely read the comments anymore. Mostly because half of them are on ignore due to the lurkers.

[Bolo Boffin]

282. "what used to be a very informative site" -- Really?

Because I've been here since 2002. And I'm quite sure I'm one of these people that you have on ignore. But I've been here virtually all that time, debunking all the while. So by your standards, this has never been a "very informative site." You're engaging in some revisionist history to even be able to claim that.

But I've found that the facts always seems to be a challenge for the CT side of the argument. By presenting the facts and rational arguments, I've been a small part in making this site a very informative one indeed. So take your pretense that this site has been any different from 3 years ago and peddle it somewhere else.

[SDuderstadt]

265. Jesus Fucking Christ.....

of the total of 137 passengers, do you think it might have been MORE likely that foreign nationals were carrying their passports? As an American citizen, are you required to have your passport when you're in another country? If you're visiting a foreign country, is it the same case? Hint: no. Do you think before you post? How, exactly, is it a coincidence that it happened to be Atta's passport? Do yourself a favor and read a book called "Fooled by Randomness".

[SDuderstadt]

263. Wtf?

Are you serious? Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that cataclysmic events (especially intentional plane crashes) produce uniform results? It was a domestic flight. I don't know what percentage of the passengers were also domestic. Why would they necessarily be carrying their passports?

Beyond that, if you believe that the fact that no other passports appeared to have been found around GZ makes this suspicious, don't you think the "perps" would have figired this out and "planted" others? Frankly, I think you start with the conclusion you want and rely on some of the most twisted logic I've ever heard to make claims like this.

[vincent_vega_lives]

270. Disciple of Chrisopharia

Or whatever his name was. Not again.

[spooked911]

283. nukes

should be obvious by now

[vincent_vega_lives]

284. So GZ should be screaming hot with

alpha and gamma emitters correct?

[Realityhack]

285. No no no...

see they are magic nuclear weapons...
they vaporize the interior of the building, but leave the exterior intact
they leave enough residual radiation in the debris pile to melt steel, but no radiation would be detected by anyone not with the government
and they explode, but all of the radiation emitting material was able to be cleaned up in a few weeks

see. Magic nukes.

[Bolo Boffin]

286. So it's not only Hush-a-Boom technology

but these bombs use Cloak-a-Nuke as well?

Dang, we're really getting good at deciphering those Roswell artifacts.

[Realityhack]

287. Advanced weather balloon technology at its finest n/t