What Is A Strawman And Who Uses The Technique Here?

[Christophera]

Lesson # 5
What is a "Strawman"?
19 Jan 2006

\
The term "strawman" refers to a deception technique. It refers to a
person who avoids debating the most significant aspects of a theory
and instead attacks a weak or irrelevant aspect of the theory, or he
attacks a distorted version of the theory.

[oblivious]

1. To me, it is misrepresenting the opponent's position.

Then they attack this false position and claim an equally false victory. It's an effective way to derail a thread.

[Christophera]

3. Good Definition: I Believe We Have Here An Example W/Post# 2

Hack is trying to reverse my position and basic standing in the 9-11 truth search.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x74140#74280

He implies, suggests or expects people to believe that somehow I am attacking the weak point of some un identified somebody, rather than what I'm actually doing which is simply asserting, consistent with all forensic evidence, that there was a different core in the towers than what FEMA shows us. So the basic assertion is a distortion rather than selectivity to the insignificant aspect of an issue as the strict strawman definition shows.

For someone not familiar, hacks ploy may be taken as legitimate discussion wherein he is successful in confusing the real issue.

http://concretecore.741.com/

[hack89]

2. You do a lot ..

your concrete core theory is a classic.

[mirandapriestly]

20. Whether there was or was not a concrete core

that is not an accurate example of a "straw man".

[LARED]

4. I way I see it the vast majority of 9/11 demolition,

no plane, missiles, mythology are straw man argument/fallacies.

The argument that the WTC 1 & 2 towers collapsed from the damage done by the jet impacts and the resulting fires is not just a strong argument, it is a fact. The argument that WTC 7 collapsed from damage, fires, and a unique design is a fact not an argument.

Attempts to distract from this truth via controlled demolition theories, lasers, pod planes, no planes, Tesla weapons, missiles, nuclear bombs are all classic straw man fallacies.

[Christophera]

5. NOTICE:Practitioner Of Strawman Technique Identifies Straw Fallacy, X-cept

one. He has it totally wrong.

posted by LARED
I way I see it the vast majority of 9/11 demolition,

no plane, missiles, mythology are straw man argument/fallacies.

The argument that the WTC 1 & 2 towers collapsed from the damage done by the jet impacts and the resulting fires is not just a strong argument, it is a fact. The argument that WTC 7 collapsed from damage, fires, and a unique design is a fact not an argument.

Attempts to distract from this truth via controlled demolition theories, lasers, pod planes, no planes, Tesla weapons, missiles, nuclear bombs are all classic straw man fallacies.

This can only be a demolition.

[LARED]

6. Am I correct in interpreting the image -- that the red arrow

pointing to venting is proof of demolition in your mind?

[Christophera]

7. Red Arrow Becomes Strawman For LARED In Obviously Flawed Assumption

I didn't place the red arrow on the image. Whoever did indicates premature explosion of a single floor. They must be correct because there is no other reasonable explanation comprehensive to the scene. We must always be comprehensive to free fall and pulverization, major factors.


If it was venting, the floors above would react the same way as the arrowed floor.

I use the image because it shows the scope of the demolition and the pieces of heavy steel far from the tower.

The strawman has many guises.

[LARED]

8. It appears the difference between a question and an argument

seems to be a difficult concept for you.

I did not create a strawman argument I simply asked you a question.

If it was venting, the floors above would react the same way as the arrowed floor.

You make an assumption the floors above are the same as the floor showing venting. I'd bet the floor showing the arrow is a mechanical floor.

[Christophera]

10. You Changed The Subject, First Strawman Move. MECH. Floor Has Few Windows.

So, as if you hadn't changed the subject every time it came up over the last 6 months..

Why are the steel core columns FEMA shows for the core not seen in these photos?



No columns but we do see fine vertical elements that can only be the rebar of the concrete core I saw being built in a documentary in 1990.



And to avoid straw use of the below INTERIOR CORE COLUMN, not inside the core, I identify it as such now and state that the image provides scale for the image above, taken just after the below. The interior box columns are 14 inches thick.

[sgsmith]

11. Ding Ding Ding

We have a winner!

"You make an assumption the floors above are the same as the floor showing venting. I'd bet the floor showing the arrow is a mechanical floor."

The red arrow points to the mechanical floors. Don't believe me - just look over at the North Tower and see the different shading that's at the same elevation. Then there is the second set of different shading on the North Tower. Voila - two sets of mechanical floors are documented.

BTW - We (the general public) have absolutely no idea what the floor plan looked like on the mechanical floors. It's documented that the floor was built of higher density concrete, and didn't use the floor truss arrangement that the general use floors used. I'm guessing from an HVAC perspective that there were large vents to allow for the intake and exhaust of air used to produce chilled water and/or steam.

Also, notice the big hunk of structure that's falling between the two towers. Guess what - it's at the same damn elevation of the "premature explosions". Maybe, just maybe, something inside the tower - like an elevator cab - free fell inside the building until it hit the mechanical floor, producing an explosion of dust.

[Christophera]

12. STRAWDANCE: 42 Sky Lobby Floor, W/MECH. 41 Under it. Few Windows

Through a process of elimination I've determined that both towers had a sky lobby at the 42 with mechanical under it, so that is the case. Meaning there were less windows Entire floor was not lobby. Often PA offices were located on the sky lobby with building engineering offices under it.



Below, the sky lobby and mechanical at the 75, 76 floors appear pretty solid here, north tower on the left looking eastward.

[LARED]

15. So what do you believe the consequences are of having the venting

observable at a mechanical floor?

[simonm]

19. 1 point for Lared, 0 for Christophera (Successful redirection)

Successful issue redirect. Sorry Christophera.


Because we all know the explosive force it would require to eject all those steel beams in the photo didn't come from explosives. It came from compressed air while floors were pancaking. :sarcasm:

[Christophera]

30. Another Evasion: See Post #7. Venting Won't Account For Free Fall

and pulverization and they were the major events of the day.

LARED does not use information or evidence, he produces information (no evidence) and hopes people will respond to it indicating to the hapless viewer what may be a succesful distraction.

[hack89]

46. So you tells us what happens ,,,

when 500,000 cubic feet of air is compressed to a zero volume in a fraction of a second.

Can you even answer a direct question?

[Kevin Fenton]

24. Venting on mechanical floors

"It's documented that the floor was built of higher density concrete, and didn't use the floor truss arrangement that the general use floors used."
I've seen documentation that they were built of higher density concrete (and I think they were thicker too, although I can't find that information now), but I haven't seen documentation that they didn't use the floor truss arrangement that the general floors use. Would you have that to hand?

"I'm guessing from an HVAC perspective that there were large vents to allow for the intake and exhaust of air used to produce chilled water and/or steam."
Not so sure about that. The venting in the big picture with the red arrow is from the east side of the South Tower, which was one of the long sides.

This photo shows venting on both the long and short sides coming from the second set of mechanical floors in the north tower:

The air shafts on the diagrams of the usual type of floors (for example page 11 of NIST NCSTAR 1-7 - Egress) are on the long sides of the core, so I don't really see how they can account for venting on a short side.

In addition, you're just guessing. I'd like to see some actual evidence before I buy this.

"Maybe, just maybe, something inside the tower - like an elevator cab - free fell inside the building until it hit the mechanical floor, producing an explosion of dust.
I've had a look at the elevator shafts a while back and I don't recall any that terminated on the mechanical floors. Many local shafts terminated three floors above the middle mechanical floor the venting seems to be coming from. I really doubt the shafts had a 3-floor service well. Which specific shaft or group of shafts do you think it might be?

I'd just like to point out it'd be real easy to place explosives on the mechanical floors where there are no pesky tenant employees to see you.

[Make7]

26. Mechanical floors.

In each tower, Mechanical floors 7, 41, and 75, and Tenant floors 9, 43, and 77, directly above the Mechanical Floors, were not included in the floor frequency measurement program, because they were framed with wide-flange steel beams and not trusses.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf   (pdf page 77)

In the floor design load documents reproduced on pdf page 48 of NISTNCSTAR1-1A, it says that floors 9 and 77 had 8" concrete floors and floors 41 and 75 had 5.5" floors. It also says that the floor structure for those floors used steel beams. This obviously does not account for all of the mechanical floors, but does illustrate that the design was different than that of the normal tenant floors.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

27. Thank you very much

What do you think of the venting?

[Make7]

34. No problem.

When watching video of the venting pictured in Post #5, it doesn't really look like something caused by high powered explosives to me - the velocity seems much too slow. But that's just my opinion.


http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem6/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.below.4 (divx 5.1).avi

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem13/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.street.avi


Since there are other possible explanations, it can hardly be considered proof of anything one way or the other.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

40. What do you think the velocity is?

In the first video (8 seconds), it seems to be visible for less than 1 second and to travel 20 metres. If we say it was visible for half a second, then the speed is 40 m/s.

In the second video (5 seconds), it seems to be visible for less than 1 second and to travel 30 metres. If we say that it was visible for 0.5 of a second, then the speed is 60 m/s.

These estimates are about as rough as you could get. I checked on wikipedia, and there it says high explosives start at about 1,000 m/s, whereas low explosives travel at roughly half that. So that would indicate that the squibs are not high explosives. However, I compared the "squibs" with those from an undisputed demolition, the Seattle Kingdom, and they seemed to be travelling at about the same rate.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323
Surely, high explosives must have been used to demolish the Kingdome - perhaps blasts slow down when they approach their outer limit.

I'm not so sure I would say the "squibs" are proof of demolition, I think I would prefer highly consistent with explosive demolition.

As for the other two possible explanations, something from lift shaft seems highly unlikely. I just can't see some sort of falling debris blowing out a blind shaft (on the same floor in both towers?). There were three elevators that opened on floor 41 (17, 49 and 50), all of which caried on up the towers (at least another 35 floors). There were two elevators (49 and 50) that opened on floor 42. I really doubt they opened in the direction of the east wall.

The air conditioning argument is more plausible than the elevators, I don't recall ever having seen such venting come from an air conditioning shaft during a collapse (although this may be because I don't spend that much time watching videos of buildings being blown up). We need diagrams of the floor before we can make a definitive judgement on this one.

Which floor is it actually coming from? The middle mechanical floor of the three - 42?

What do the louvers there actually look like? Would you have a picture?

[Make7]

42. Around 20m/s.

I got just over that for the first video and just under for the second one. (Although it is difficult to make precise measurements on the quality of video usually obtained in the internet.) To reach these numbers I stepped through the videos frame by frame to get as close of an estimate as I could. Those are average speeds - the dust does seem to slow down at the end of its travel.

If one assumes that explosives were in the core area, the dust from a blast could have slowed down a great deal by the time it got to the perimeter of the building - and the louvers would have slowed it down even more I imagine. (BTW - I don't recall ever seeing any pictures of the louvers.) But if they were shaped charges, would the dust clouds even reach the perimeter? Or were there explosives placed near the perimeter?

In the first video, when the dust appears it is concentrated in the middle, then it spreads out horizontally and then the center section seems to continue moving out much more than the rest of the dust. It just doesn't look like the few explosive squibs I've seen - although the fact that the air movement from the debris falling above the mechanical floors is also having an influence on it might have a lot to do with why it doesn't look the same.

As far as the air handling system is concerned, I doubt if most buildings being demolished had running air conditioning systems when they collapsed. And I really don't know enough about air conditioning systems to know if this could account for the amount of dust seen. However, I do think it is possible.

This venting looks like it is occurring on the bottom mechanical floor to me. Now we just need to find someone that knows what the hell is on those mechanical floors. (I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.)

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

44. Those pesky mechanical floors

You have measured the speed much more carefully than I did, so I'll accept your number for now. Doubling ot trebling it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Where were the explosives?
I know it's a sin, but I'm going to use "logic" to take a short-cut. It would make sense to place explosives by the load-bearing columns in the perimeter and/or core - I really see no point whatsoever in placing charges between the core and the perimeter. The "squibs" in the red-arrow picture are clearly not coming from the entire length of the perimeter and (even if the demolition was poor) I fail to see the point of severing, say, 20-30 perimeter columns on one side of a floor. What would this achieve? So I think I'm going to say they're in the core, where it should be much easier to place them anyway.

Why would louvers slow a "squib" down? My understanding is that they would have been open - to let the heat out. Something has clearly been ejected in the red arrow picture - beats me what it is.
I guess the louvers would have looked vaguely like the ones you can see here:
http://www.ruskin.com/article.aspx?id=241

If a core column were severed by a shaped charge then there should not really be a "squib" coming out of the perimeter 60 feet away (or 30 feet away on the "near" sides), provided it were done properly. However, one of the things that is usually done before controlled demolition is a test blast, where the explosives expert checks whether he is using the right amount of explosives. If such test blast cannot be done (as would have been the case at the WTC), then the logical step would be to use more explosive to be on the safe side, so we might get "squibs".

There is some dispute over how many mechanical floors there actually were. 41 and 42 difinitely were, was 43?
Wikipedia thinks it wasn't:
"World Trade Center Twin Towers: Floors 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109 (total 8/110, 7%). It is unclear whether a mechanical penthouse existed as part of the 110th floor or on top of it (yielding respectively 9/110, and 9/111 or 8%). Some sources erroneously mention 12 floors, in groups of 3, due to the height of the vents (actually the ceilings there were higher) and because levels 44 and 78 were skylobbies which in many buildings sit directly on top of the mechanical floors. However the twin towers had one occupied office floor under each skylobby, accessible through escalators."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_floor

I previously thought that the louvers covered 3 floors, not 2 - seeing as I was basing this partly on the height of the louvers, it appears I was wrong. There was a cafeteria on floor 43, too. So, OK, the "squibs" are coming out of the the bottom floor - 41, where elevators 17, 49 and 50 open.

If "squibs" could be seen emerging from two sides of the same floor, it might be possible to determine the place at which they originated (although it would have to be assumed that they were travelling in a straight line all the way).

[Christophera]

45. I've Checked My 1964 Set Of PRELIM. Building Plans For The Towers

and the elevator sheets have some information that may help.

The 40th floor was the bottom of the mechanical and 26 feet over that was the bottom of the sky lobby which had a 14 foot ceiling.

From the roof down was a 24 foot mechanical room that didn't reach the perimeter. 43 feet down from the roof was the floor of the 103rd floor, the observation deck.

There is no floor plan for the mechanical or skylobby floors.

Also a comment on the term "squib"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

The term should not be used at all because it refers to a low explosive (gunpowder) initiator. The proper term is "charge(s)".

A comment on shape charges.

A shape charge adequate to sever the supposed steel core columns would reach, in a single direction, from the core out to the perimeter. A series of them would produce something similar to what the red arrow points to, but in my estimation, if it were adequate to sever the steel column, the explosion would be much larger vertically. It would involve at least a floor above and below by the time it expanded to the positon of the perimeter. Cutting steel with high explosives requires huge loads.

[Make7]

48. Please refrain from using the "L" word when replying to my posts.

"Logic" has no place in these debates.[/sarcasm]

I agree that if there were explosives they would have been placed in the core area. And it is possible that squibs from explosives could reach the perimeter of the buildings given the probable difficulty in severing the core columns with charges, however I believe the dust in the picture below is exiting one of the sides of the building that is furthest from the core. Would it not be more likely for it to exit from the side closest to the core?



In stating that the louvers would also slow down the dust cloud, I was going under the assumption that the louvers were angled to keep out rain. I believe it is phyically impossible for a dust cloud to hit an obstacle that would cause a change in its direction without slowing down to some degree. Whether or not it would be significant could be argued of course.

I was always under the impression that the mechanical floors were in groups of twos. And I still believe that to be the case, although I don't have a good source at hand to confirm that quickly. (I like wikipedia, but feel that corroboration of the information found there is usually a good idea.) Although, it does kind of look like the louvers cover three floors in some pictures.

Have you seen this video where what looks like water(?) is coming out of the mechanical floors on the north side of the South Tower during its collapse?



- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

53. Squibs, etc.

If a charge were placed on the inside of one of the columns on a long side (like the east side of the South Tower), then any "squib" from it should be seen coming from that side.

Thank you for the video link. It wouldn't play for me, but the stuff is clearly visible in the "red arrow" picture as well and may be water. What would that indicate?

OK, you're right about the louvers, but I doubt it should slow the "squib" down significantly.

The table on page 5 of the NIST report indicates that only one of the eight sets of mechanical floors (the one at the very top of the South Tower) has three floors. The other seven have 2.

This is a good "squib"

Where is it coming from? I'd say its the north side of the South Tower, at about floor 30. It seems to be just to the east of the centre, which lines it up nicely with the central corridor through the core. AFAIK there shouldn't be any air conditioning equipment on this side. There was only one elevator (number 50) connected to the impact floors that opened on floor 30 (or any nearby floor). In addition, there were fourteen blind shafts (10 express elevators, 6, 7, 17 and 49). None of them were lined up with the "squib".

[Make7]

55. That is a good one.

I don't have any explanation (again), but I do have a couple of observations. When viewing the video, it appears to start small and then increase in speed and size. That's the impression I get anyway - it is difficult to judge from the angle and quality of the video. I bring this up because it seems more consistent with some kind of leak (of what, I don't know) than 'squibs' from explosives - although multiple charges could produce a similar effect. The question that this raises is: if this is an explosive charge that went off prematurely, would it be accompanied by other "misfires"? Or would it be just a single charge. I'm not even sure what the chances of explosives detonating out of sequence would be, but I would imagine it to be extremely small. Although depending on how many charges may have been used, it is possible for more than a few to go off ahead of schedule.

It looks like the 'cloud' from that squib is just visible in this picture:



And it also started before the venting on the mechanical floors indicated by the arrow. Hmmmm....

The "water" coming out the mechanical floor is easier to see in that video I posted. How it falls once it exits the building is what makes me think that it's water. It certainly doesn't look like any kind of dust.

My point being - I think it's possible that building systems in areas not near the collapse may have nevertheless been adversely affected by the collapsing building above. If the systems were controlled electronically, who knows what havoc may have occurred when remote parts of the system were destroyed?

That's odd about there being three mechanical floors at the top of the South Tower. I wonder why it was different.

Sometimes it seems like the more I find out, the less I know.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

57. I can't tell much from the video

"If this is an explosive charge that went off prematurely, would it be accompanied by other "misfires"? Or would it be just a single charge. I'm not even sure what the chances of explosives detonating out of sequence would be, but I would imagine it to be extremely small."

The "squib" from floor 41 appears after the "squib" from floor 30, so, assuming they are both "squibs" from explosives, this would indicate they are firing out of sequence. If, however, the "squib" from floor 41 was really venting (but the one on floor 30 were not), then they would not be firing out of sequence. If the explosives were set off as part of a false flag operation, then I would hope they would all fire in sequence, but I would also hope that fireballs in elevator shafts and/or overpressures created by falling elevators would not set off charges in the basement and/or charges in the basement would not be fired in impact, hoping nobody would notice. However, if the "bomber" had to hurriedly reprogramme the firing sequence to make it look like a "natural" collapse, a possibility he had never previously considered, in less than an hour without knowing whether any charges had gone off accidentally, he might well make several mistakes.

"I think it's possible that building systems in areas not near the collapse may have nevertheless been adversely affected by the collapsing building above. If the systems were controlled electronically, who knows what havoc may have occurred when remote parts of the system were destroyed?"
Adverse effects are quite clearly possible. However, I am not satisfied with the explanation that it may have been caused by an unidentified system. I don't really see why an adversely affected system would eject something with such force that it would smash a window and cause a "jet" to shoot several metres from the tower. Especially when we consider that it occurred very early in the collapse - the "dust" cloud is not yet even halfway down the tower.

The "extra" mechanical floor in the South Tower was devoted to TV equipment in the North Tower. There was some dispute over whether the TV stuff would be moved there from the Empire State Building and it was resolved during construction - the TV companies had long leases on the ESB, but the WTC would now interfere with the signal, so they needed to go there, but would have to pay a lot for breaking the ESB leases and the ESB obviously didn't want to let them go without them paying up the leases. It all got sorted out, but I don't remember how. If the hat truss is for the TV antenna, then why has the South Tower got a hat truss?

[Make7]

60. I have looked for a better version, but have not yet been successful.

One of the main reason 'squibs' caused by explosives is not a convincing idea to me is that what is seen exiting the building is localized to an extremely small area of the few floors where it is seen. If the goal is to destroy the load carrying capacity of the core columns, it seems to me that much more than a few charges would be needed. Yet, the venting usually seems to come from a single point per side at most. Would all the charges expand in varying directions to reach that same point? Or were the 'squibs' a result of single charges that went off out of sequence?

I wish I had found a better version of video showing the particular 'squib' in question, because my impression is that it increases in intensity after it's appearance. Explosives, to the best of my knowledge, release most of their energy extremely rapidly at the time of detonation. Of course, my impression of how that 'squib' is acting could be completely mistaken - the video I have seen is not exactly crystal clear, shall we say.

Without knowing how the systems in the towers were designed, installed, or operated it is rather difficult to pinpoint one particular part of a system that could account for some of the 'venting' seen. Or discount it as a possibility, for that matter.

At this point in time, I still think it comes down to unverifiable causes for most of these. One can surmise what the likely cause could have been, but that usually also factors in other information not directly related to the 'venting squibs'. All by themselves, I don't believe a conclusion can be made either way. While I certainly see why someone would consider the 'squibs' to be consistent with controlled demolition, I don't think they can be construed as proof of it. Without irrefutable proof of controlled demolition, the widely accepted belief that the planes and fires caused the collapses of the towers is unlikely to be changed.

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

If the hat truss is for the TV antenna, then why has the South Tower got a hat truss?

The hat truss served several functions, if I am not mistaken. In addition to providing support for the North Tower's antenna, they also helped equalize the possible differences in shortening of the perimeter and core columns under loads, and helped distribute some of the wind loading of the perimeter to the core. (If I am recalling correctly what Leslie Robertson has said about them.)

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

69. Popular belief, etc.

"If the goal is to destroy the load carrying capacity of the core columns, it seems to me that much more than a few charges would be needed."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think that the building collapsed after just a few of the core columns were severed? In your opinion, how many of the core columns (or how much of their load-carrying capacity) would have to be destroyed for controlled demolition to work?

"Would all the charges expand in varying directions to reach that same point?"
That depends on where they started from. If they were on an outer row facing a set of windows, then, given the WTC's layout, they should not expand in varying directions to reach the same point. However, if the charges were on the central rows of core columns, we might expect them to travel from varying starting points in the same direction (i.e. down the central corridor) to reach the same point (i.e. a window opposite the central corridor) at different times. Alternatively, they went off out of sequence. Alternatively, most of the charges were the right size and did not cause visible "squibs".

"Without irrefutable proof of controlled demolition, the widely accepted belief that the planes and fires caused the collapses of the towers is unlikely to be changed."
I disagree. How could I put this, if the public ever takes note of the "9/11 truth movement", I doubt irrefutable proof will play much of a role (unfortunately).

[Make7]

70. my impression

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

"If the goal is to destroy the load carrying capacity of the core columns, it seems to me that much more than a few charges would be needed." - Make7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think that the building collapsed after just a few of the core columns were severed? In your opinion, how many of the core columns (or how much of their load-carrying capacity) would have to be destroyed for controlled demolition to work?

I thought my use of the word 'if' would be enough to convey that I was speaking hypothetically. For me to argue from the standpoint of a local collapse being able to initiate a total progressive collapse would require me to say something like: the explosives would only be required to be detonated at the impact levels, therefore all of the 'venting' and 'squibs' at lower levels would not be caused by explosives because they were only needed to initiate a total collapse.

I thought that one of the main arguments for controlled demolition was that a progressive collapse was not possible, thus requiring explosives to destroy the load bearing ability of the buildings structure. I was simply trying to view it from that point of view to see how it might explain the 'squibs'.

I'm still going to search a little more to see if I can find a better video of that 'squib', I am basing quite a bit of this discussion on my impression that the 'squib' increases in size and speed at a rate that is slower than I would expect for something caused by explosives. (Or at least a single blast.) That impression doesn't seem to fit the 'out of sequence detonation' theory quite right, but it may just be that my impression is incorrect.

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

"Without irrefutable proof of controlled demolition, the widely accepted belief that the planes and fires caused the collapses of the towers is unlikely to be changed." - Make7

I disagree. How could I put this, if the public ever takes note of the "9/11 truth movement", I doubt irrefutable proof will play much of a role (unfortunately).

I disagree with your disagreement. I don't believe the public will ever take notice of the '9/11 Truth' movement. Or at least I doubt that the average citizen will ever be moved to action regarding 9/11 without some conclusive proof being shown to them.

You say poh-tay-toe, I say poh-tah-toe. :shrug:

Sorry for the delayed response - I failed to notice that you responded the other night and work has been overwhelmingly time consuming the last two days.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

71. There is absolutely no need to apologise

I didn't really understand the first part of your post, so I'll try another approach to the issue (I think is) under discussion:
If the charges are in the elevator shafts, then they cannot be evenly spread on the various floors (presuming they are on, say, 11 floors throughout the towers), as the elevators are not spread evenly throughout each floor of the towers. For example, on floor thirty there would only be two banks of six local elevators shafts (plus two banks of express elevators and miscellaneous freight elevators), rather than the three or four banks of local elevators on some other floors. Therefore (especially on these floors) we should not see an even pattern of squibs.

What I mean by, "if the public ever takes note of the "9/11 truth movement", I doubt irrefutable proof will play much of a role (unfortunately)." is that even if, by some chance, "9/11 truth" did become a major issue, then this would not be driven by irrefutable proof, and I regard this as unfortunate - I would much prefer it if it were driven by irrefutable proof. What political issue is driven by irrefutable proof? By "the public" I mean the "chaterring classes"; I don't think the average citizen will ever be moved to action on anything, nor is this necessary. Does that make it clearer?
For example, it might emerge that United 93 was actually shot down (for example because Winfield finally fesses up) and that would likely provide an impetus to go on to the WTC (good in my opinion) and the Pentagon (bad in my opinion).

What would constitute irrefutable proof that the WTC didn't pancake? Won't SouthCoreStands.gif do?

[Make7]

72. Not that picture again!

I guess I could simplify the first part of my previous post. I don't think controlled demolition was necessary to bring down the towers, therefore my opinion on the number of core columns that would need to be destroyed by explosives would be zero.

Since I am discussing it with you, perhaps we should go by your estimate to see how that may or may not explain the squibs. I should note that I do agree with the concept of your 'unevenly spread charges' theory.

But there are so many different ideas concerning what constitutes proof of controlled demolition, one of them being that all of the core columns were blown apart at 35 to 40 ft. intervals - that would imply that there were many explosives charges (1600 to 1900) in each core. It's hard for someone like me to know which CD theory to extract information from.

I simply don't think '9/11 Truth' will become a significant political issue unless someone can actually prove something - that's just how I see it. However, it is very much possible that I could be incorrect.

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

What would constitute irrefutable proof that the WTC didn't pancake? Won't SouthCoreStands.gif do?

SouthCoreStands.gif? Have I seen that somewhere before? What are you talking about? :)

Well, I have heard the argument that in a pancake collapse the floors should have fallen around the core like records on a spindle many times before. There ya go.

And of course the fact that most demolition theories place the charges in the core kinda makes one wonder what is going on with that picture. Why would the floors collapse first if the core was being blown up? It might make more sense that the floors actually did pancake down around the core.

- Make7

[simonm]

58. High res video display clear signs of premature detonation

Many high resolution videos!

You can find it at:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/05-02-05/discussion.cgi.44.html

Labeled as:
"Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition. (4.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472) Newest."
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-detonations-1.avi

You will need a DivX player to watch it.
http://www.divx.com/divx/play/

[Make7]

61. Thanks, that site has some pretty good videos.

Although concerning the North Tower video linked to in your post, in my opinion the venting seen is most likely just that - venting from the internal destruction of the building and the sudden escape of the pressures involved. Note how the venting seems to coincide with the amount of distance the top of the tower has fallen.

Far more interesting are the examples (not in that particular video) that occur more removed from the location of the part of the building collapsing.

- Make7

[simonm]

63. You're welcome

In the North tower video, the maintenance levels are actually further down. They are easy to find (bottom of frame, right side) when you have high resolution. You can tell by the distinct outline since it is a reinforced section.

If you like 3d CAD models.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/models/World_Trade_Center_mod.html

Here is a basic illustration and photo to help determine placement.



Maintenance levels are the darker building outlines.

[Make7]

64. I never said the 'venting' in that video was on the mechanical floors. n/t

[simonm]

65. Sorry, misunderstood

Need sleep. ..Later.

[Make7]

66. That's okay - happens to all of us. ( n/t )

[simonm]

17. Basic Question

As provided in your picture, both buildings are made up of 3 sections and each has a steel core. The floors that join those 3 sections are reinforced, thus stronger than the other floors.

Question: How did both buildings collapse while,

1. There was no resistance from the steel core.
2. There was no resistance from the reinforced floors that join those 3 sections.
3. Falling almost straight down.


Edit: Whoa you were quick to answer my other post. Can't answer this one Lared?

[LARED]

25. Answers

1. There was resistance
2. There was resistance
3. Gravity.

[simonm]

28. There was little or no resistance

All three buildings WTC 1,2,7 fell in seconds and almost straight down as if the floors below did not exist.

That my fiend, is evidence of little or no resistance. Based on your other intelligent posts, I know you understand what resistance is.

How's the pay in your department? Does it come with a cool military haircut like yours?

[LARED]

29. On what basis do you state there

there was little or no resistance?

The tower collapse at least 50 to 100 percent slower than free fall. In fact if you look at how much potential energy must be converted to work energy to attain the observed fall time, there was significant resistance.

[simonm]

31. Video Evidence

We can conclude the truth by watching the video.

Even if there was no precise freefall it wouldn't matter. All 3 buildings fell basically with little or no resistance from the floors below or the steel column supports. There is no other plausible explanation besides a demolition. Look up Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion.

You can see the evidence yourself.

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:33:28 for example)

[LARED]

32. Try this

Figure out how much energy must be converted from potential to work energy to slow the collapse time to say 15 seconds.

You will discover that very large amounts of energy was transformed to work (resistance).

[Christophera]

36. The Notion Of Collapse Without Deflection Or Toppling Not Acceptable

It is just not reasonable to consider a collapse where the structure turns into sand, gravel and fairly uniform pieces of steel. The only thing that could possibly happen in 15 seconds from plane impacts and fire would be that the tower above impact, topple, or that it slide off to one side. Even then the wreckage would be more of a tangle, still very much connected but bent up.

And the energy to reduce the concrete core and rend the steel framwork simply is not available, let alone the time to do it in a collapse. The tower stood for 35 years and everything below impact was of a proven, high strength.

[LARED]

37. Whatever n/t

[LARED]

43. This is worth repeating

It is just not reasonable to consider a collapse where the structure turns into sand, gravel and fairly uniform pieces of steel. The only thing that could possibly happen in 15 seconds from plane impacts and fire would be that the tower above impact, topple, or that it slide off to one side. Even then the wreckage would be more of a tangle, still very much connected but bent up.

This truly an excellent example of the utter lack of understanding you have about the WTC structure and collapse dynamics.

The structure did not turn to sand and or gravel. You have no evidence that is true.
The reason there were fairly uniform pieces of steel is because the perimeter column and much of the inner core were fabricated in uniform pieces. If you are interested in educating yourself review how the perimeter columns were fabricated and erected.

Your notion that a section toppling or sliding off the top would be more of a tangle, still very much connected but bent up is ridiculous. It truly belies a simplistic understanding of the structure.

[Christophera]

49. Worthy Of Exhibition-Feigning Ignorance, Shame On You For Selectivity

I wrote this to describe a normal collapse of structural steel because many people do not know what a normal collapse of structural steel looks like. I'll search for an image as an example, there should be plenty of them that look pretty much as I describe.

Christophera wrote

It is just not reasonable to consider a collapse where the structure turns into sand, gravel and fairly uniform pieces of steel. The only thing that could possibly happen in 15 seconds from plane impacts and fire would be that the tower above impact, topple, or that it slide off to one side. Even then the wreckage would be more of a tangle, still very much connected but bent

LARED wrote

This truly an excellent example of the utter lack of understanding you have about the WTC structure and collapse dynamics.

Typically you do not explain your statement, feigning ignorance, hoping the reader doesn't have a clue, working to mislead them. The towers were overbuilt. What I posted is an explanation of a collapse. You also choose the uniform pieces to mention, the assemblies of the perimeter columns. I should of said, but I'm glad I didn't because you showed your evasion of fact by your selectivity. I was referring to the interior box columns. Full height 100% welded, hand fabricated 1300 foot + box columns located around the outside of the cast concrete core. They were in uniform 40 foot pieces.

LARED wrote

The structure did not turn to sand and or gravel. You have no evidence that is true.

At the bottom is an image that shows the basement full of sand and gravel.

LARED wrote

Your notion that a section toppling or sliding off the top would be more of a tangle, still very much connected but bent up is ridiculous. It truly belies a simplistic understanding of the structure.

Of course you provide no example of collapse that shows zillions of pieces of steel laying around. Mostly because no such example is available. Steel bends and most of its's joints remain connected in a normal collapse. You are just MISLEADING in an effort ot dismiss competent, logical information.

Shame on you. Our dead need justice not support for lies that murderers hide behind.

[Make7]

50. A Modest Proposal.

Could you please not use that huge picture, it screws up the text margins. Why don't you use the smaller version and link to the big one like on your website? Link this:



Click ?pic">here for high-resolution version.

Here's the code, just copy and paste it into your post:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/images/pdrm1943.25pct.jpg

Click [link:www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg?pic|here] for high-resolution version.

Thanks,
- Make7

[Christophera]

51. But Then The Gravel Isn't Seen And The SIte Won't Handle Images On A Link

or at least I haven't found the code for that yet.

[Make7]

52. See Post #50. ( n/t )

[Christophera]

54. Just In Time For Large Image Of Interior Box Columns

But I can't get the code right.



Hmmmmmm, no columns inside. Only columns at the edge.

[Make7]

56. The trick is to use a question mark.

< NOTE: code shown in green. >

If you take the web address of the top image in your post:

   http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg

And add a question mark and a letter or two:

   http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg?pic

It will become a link when posted - like this:

   http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg?pic

It doesn't even really matter what you put after the question mark.

Or if you want to do a link with a specific word or words, you can use the link command. Like this:

   [link:algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg?pic|WTC basement picture]

Notice that there is no http:// before the web address in the link command - if you leave it in there it won't work. (Previewing your post to double check the links before hitting the 'Post message' button is recommended.) Anyway, the example above should result in the following:

   WTC basement picture

All of the code in green can be copied and pasted directly into one of your posts. Try it and see what happens when you preview the post.

Anyway, for really big pictures - you could make a half or quarter size picture to post and then do a link for the bigger version.

This is just a suggestion - I know I often skip over posts that require me to scroll back and forth in order to read the text. This might help prevent other people from skipping over your posts with margin issues. Or at least prevent me from skipping over them. :)

- Make7

[Christophera]

67. THX For Tips On Links/Images

I wondered what that question mark was for.

[Make7]

68. No problem. ( n/t )

[Make7]

33. Based on the Video Evidence....

... how many seconds do you estimate that the North Tower took to collapse?

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 37:50 for example)

How would that collapse time be evidence of "little or no resistance"?

- Make7

[Christophera]

39. Video Evidence Does Not Show How Strong The Towers Were, Or Resistence

What kind of resistence could reasonably be estimated from the base of a tower that held the top of the tower for 35 years through high winds and varying loads.

The kind of resistence that would eliminate any collapse whatsoever. What happened cannot be classed as a collapse therefore there is no estimate. The bulding cannot do it in the way we saw. That must happen with high explosives optimally placed and distributed and precisely detonated in a high speed series sequentially down the towers.

[Make7]

41. Based on the video evidence we can conclude there was resistance.

In the video that simonm posted - during the collapse of the North Tower (found at 37:55 in the video), the debris that is falling outside the perimeter of the tower is falling faster than the tower itself is collapsing. If there was "little or no resistance", the tower would be collapsing at nearly an identical rate to the debris falling right next to it. Therefore, there must have been resistance - and it was enough to be clearly visible by watching 20 seconds of video.

I was merely asking simonm to watch that portion of the video to see if the collapse time is consistent with the tower coming down with "little or no resistance" from the intact structure.

Why you thought interjecting your opinion into the discussion would be helpful, I do not know. It was a simple request on my part - since you've decided to enter the debate, why don't you view that part of the video and see if you can identify the obvious signs that it was not a "free-fall" collapse?

- Make7

[simonm]

59. Doesn't matter if there was resistance

WTC 1 and 2 each fell down in seconds.

Despite,

1. Steel reinforced concrete
2. Reinforced maintenance levels
3. Steel Cores
4. Steel frame
5. 110 floors

Even if resistance was present, there was very little available as shown in the video.

Make7, What do you think caused the complete collapse of WTC 1 and 2? A plane and a little fire? LOL

[Make7]

62. It doesn't?

You seemed to make quite an effort to point out that there was "no resistance", or "little or no resistance" previously. (See post #17. And post #28. And post #31.) Now it "doesn't matter if there was resistance"? What then was the point of your previous efforts?

Perhaps you should do some calculations as suggested by LARED, figure out how much resistance there actually was based on the collapse times.

simonm wrote:

Make7, What do you think caused the complete collapse of WTC 1 and 2? A plane and a little fire? LOL

I think the towers collapsed due to the airplane impacts and the subsequent fires, although I would not characterize the fires as little.

- Make7

[Christophera]

35. Most Went Up & Out, Then Down- Great Typo!

In fact, all the distance up must be added to the tower height in free fall calculations because material must fall further after going up a hundred feet or so. This happened all the way down.

[petgoat]

9. Facts? That's absurd, LARED.

Only someone who demolished the buildings with explosives would know for a fact why they came down.

The proposition that the planes brought down the towers can never be anything more than a theory,
because there is not sufficient evidence to prove it.

[simonm]

13. You failed to mention

All 3 buildings fell basically with no resistance from the floors below or the steel core supports. There is no other plausible explanation besides a demolition. Look up Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion.

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:33:28 for example)

[LARED]

14. Tell me more, I am quite interested in your

views on Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion and how they relate to the collapse.

[simonm]

18. Watch the video

What is your opinion?

[Christophera]

16. Posts #4, #6, #8, #11 = Strawman Effect. Free Fall Issue + Avoided

Post #11 achieved a desired effect where another party jumps in and makes the strawman, non issue, appear more important than it is.

Ultimately the assertion of demolition, with its evidence, was diverted into a counter assertion of venting of compressed air. The issue of pressurization from falling floors above has been defeated with logic and reason every time it comes up. First: Pressurization takes time, free fall was attained = no time for pressurization. Second: Structural breakage with descent takes time, there is no time for this in what happened. Third: Windows cannot hold the pressure needed to rip insulation and concrete apart making the particulate and dust we see. Forth: No floors are seen falling and at the top, particulate is upwardly arcing. Supposed within the pancake fallacy one floor is falling onto another pressurizing the air and blowing it out the sides. Well, ............ why is it coming out the top then?



Clearly the effect of the straw man in use can dilute these facts and if a person does not read this post, they might just accept that the strawman presented delivered relevant information in the significant picture. It does not. Free fall happened and total pulverization happened as the major events of the day, the straw man effectively distracted from this. WIth a third party in there partaking in the strawman, it is very difficult to keep focus and make relevant points in a manner that can be easily followed.

This tactic is officially allowed here as free speech, so it is up to the viewer to complain about it.

[simonm]

22. 3 strong words

Ejected Steel Beams

[Andre II]

47. Giving answers

LARED why is it that you claim things and after four request to present only a single witness for your claim you simply don't respond (only one post stronogly implying that the person asking is an idiot)?
LARED why is that?
LARED, no, sorry, people at the crash site on 911 didn't believe that there was a plane neither that there were body parts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=67776&mesg_id=68033

I find your attitude strange.
Wouldn't it be more an honest discussion and worth the quest for the truth if you agree that your claim is baseless or come up with only a single eyewitnesses?

[mirandapriestly]

21. A good example

"oh, yeah, you think there were holograms on missiles, ha ha ha, you crazy ct'er", when in fact the person the debunker is talking to never said they believed in holograms. I saw that a few days ago.

[Christophera]

23. Classic Example: Misrepresent The Messenger, Hyper Manipulations

We have a case where the escalation of distortion moves from intentionally misrepresenting the messenger with a direct distortion of the message to a misrepresented fixation on insignificant issues, never mentioning or responding to anything about major factors.

When 2 posters or more cooperate in this, black can become white, and white can become black.

Protection: Be redundant, consistent and clear in your position. Viewers will recognize your thinking and when it is intentionally distorted, they will see it. That, .......... is fatal to the deception because the viewer resents the obvious manipulation away from the pretense of the forum. Credibility of the forum is compromised and that of the manipulator is as well.

The forum is supposed to be about finding the truth when we know the government has lied to us. Not about a battle between one invisible group trying to use the medium to distill facts from raw evidence and another group working to block and diffuse the process with constant deception and manipulation.

[hang a left]

38. This post should be stuck to the top of this forum. eom