But they don’t appear to be explosions at all, and this is plainly visible in any decent-quality video of the phenomenon. The squib begins quite slow, then increases in force as the building continues to fall. (Displayed quite well at this site.) You’re trying to claim that an explosive was positioned right on the edge of the building (which is pointless, as there are no supports there, and this would only serve to incite scepticism), and that it’s a “slow” explosive that gradually picks up pressure over time? That makes no sense to me. The theory that these squibs are caused by air being forced out of certain floors as the ceiling collapses on them makes much more sense in my opinion. Where else did all that air go? (Bearing in mind that office buildings are about 90-95% air.)
I haven’t responded to the pulverized concrete argument because I never saw it as a valid point. And I still don’t. Of course concrete is going to be pulverised to dust when a 400+ meter tall building weighing five-hundred thousand tons falls down on it. What did you expect to see? Large chunks of concrete perfectly intact? I’m just puzzled about why this is even an issue. Didn’t you see the giant cloud of dust that engulfed most of Manhattan right after the buildings fell? That kind of energy is almost unimaginable to us, and concrete is a very rigid substance that could easily be crushed into fine powder. When the old Canberra hospital was imploded about five years ago in my city, there was a problem, and one of the large cement stacks fell the wrong way (away from the building, instead of into it). When it hit the ground, with the help of no explosives whatsoever, it instantly disintegrated. It didn’t even bounce. It just fell into a pile of fine dust, with only a couple of fist-size chunks remaining. And this was only six or so stories tall. That’s just how cement/concrete behaves when a strong force is applied to it. It crumbles.
Agreed. I definitely would like to see some footage of the Pentagon incident released to the public. Something that actually shows the plane moments before impact. But with respect to eye-witness accounts, I tend to think they’re a little more valid in the Pentagon case, solely because people weren’t panicking when they reported seeing a 757 flying dangerously low to the highway. At the WTC, everyone thought Armageddon was upon them. They heard elevator shafts crashing to the lobby, and they thought it was an explosion. They saw burning jet fuel running down those shafts and spilling out onto the ground floor, and they thought a bomb had gone off in the basement. They had no idea what was happening, and their perception wasn’t anywhere near as reliable as that of the 300+ DC residents who calmly watched a massive plane cruise overhead in the direction of the Pentagon.
I’m doing both in equal amounts. I don’t think there’s any evidence that explosives were used, and I tend to think it makes sense that the collapsing floors within the building would be responsible for the visible ejection of debris (squibs) as well as causing the overall collapse to accumulate in speed rather than slow down. Bear in mind that the burden of proof isn’t on me. The cause of the collapse that we all witnessed (ie, the planes) is the “default” explanation, and you’re trying to provide alternatives. From what I can see, these alternatives don’t appear to stand up to criticism.
Again, it should be noted that very few supporters of the demolition theory actually possess qualifications in that or a related field. The link that Josh provided earlier shows that even Jones himself has no certified understanding of civil engineering, and neither did any of the people who peer reviewed his paper. That’s a very significant point. If a handful of software designers, some pastry chefs and a botanist all review my paper on quantum physics and can’t point out something that isn’t right, then it might as well not have been peer reviewed at all. A great deal of his information is simply wrong, and actual engineers (several of which are mentioned on the aforementioned link) can easily tear it to shreds.
Source? I’ve never heard this before, and I’d be interested to find out more about it. Though I’m sure every sizable building has regular periods of down-time as they’re inspected, repaired, or whatever. I won’t say it’s impossible for people to smuggle the explosives into the building (there’s no time limit, so we have to allow for the possibility of it happening), but it seems unlikely that they could be set up on several support poles around the building without anyone noticing them for weeks, months or years.
The keyword there being “imagine.” It’s all well and good to say, “They’re the military, I’m sure they have some kind of top-secret explosive that can withstand temperatures capable of warping steel and still be capable of receiving remote signals to detonate,” but you’ll need to back that up with something. Explosives are volatile by nature, and we’re talking about every square inch of the affected floors being baked in 1000+ degrees for an hour. I don’t buy it. I think those extreme temperatures and the damage that the planes did to the support columns is enough in itself.
What ideas? That a plane can bring down a building? I’m just working with what we can see. You’re the one with ideas that require further evidence and explanations, and so far they just don’t hold up in my view.
Are you sure you’re reading the links that have been posted in here? In the entire official 9/11 Conspiracy Movement, only two members actually have qualifications in engineering. And of those, one doesn’t seem to have finished his degree yet, and the other is 82 years old. You’ll be hard pressed to find a qualified engineer who agrees that the buildings probably would not have fallen without the aid of explosives. This page comments on most of the big voices who have come forth and protested the official story. It also shows that very few of them can back up their assertions with the appropriate qualifications. Maybe a few engineers support the conspiracy, but it seems that the vast majority of them aren’t questioning the likeliness of the official story. To them, it makes sense exactly as we see it.
I don’t want to sound repetitive, but more attention really should be paid to the people supporting both sides of the argument, and what experience or qualifications they have. A couple of engineers giving a presentation about how suspicious the events were doesn’t outweigh a dozen others who firmly maintain that it was a legitimate collapse resulting from the known causes.
But it still doesn’t make sense. “Pull” isn’t used in the demolitions business to mean "implode/explode.”. It (officially) means to tie ropes around any remaining structures or wall segments that survived the implosion and pulling them over with bulldozers. Everyone has said this. Also, fire fighters don’t destroy buildings. Never have, never will. The comment about “pulling” can only mean, “Get everyone out of there.” Conspiracy websites like to cut small sections out of longer quotes to help their cause, but if you read the full transcripts of recorded conversation on that day, it really does look like the reference was intended to mean clear the area, as building 7 was apparently unstable and about to fall down.
I don’t know anything about this, so I have no thoughts on it. However, I am aware that Bush was sitting in an elementary school classroom at the moment that the first plane hit, so I’m not going to buy into what you’re probably suggesting here. He was obviously just referring to watching it on TV after the event, as he simply wasn’t anywhere near the site at the time, and this is verifiable. It wasn’t televised until later that day, but I’m sure the President had access to recordings long before the media.
Oh, and wait a minute… the first hit wasn’t televised until the next day? What are you talking about? The first hit was played over and over on the same day (heck, I watched it myself) just an hour or so after the plane hit. Both collisions, the second one being filmed live because all the film crews had arrived on the scene long before then, were played repeatedly.
No, no, no! Having something “peer reviewed” doesn’t immediately grant it some kind of magically appointed, indisputable validity. It depends entirely on who reviews your paper, and in this case, it appears all the wrong people were chosen. Not Jones himself, nor any of the people he showed his paper to, were qualified to comment on the validity of his claims. It would be like you writing a paper on why the buildings had to have been rigged with explosives, then showing it to your friends (who all major in Philosophy) before getting it published. It was an illegitimate paper, and actual structural engineers all but laugh when they read it.
Oh, and Stranger, you should never base your views on one video that was put together by conspiracy advocates. They intentionally skip over or change information to suit their cause, and if you do a little research, you’ll probably find that virtually no part of these videos can be trusted. Read a bunch of websites for and against the conspiracy, then make up your mind. You’ll find that it’s a more complicated issue than it first appears. Just, for the love of God, don’t restrict all your research time to pro-conspiracy pages. There’s a great deal of information they don’t like to mention.
