Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Head-2-Head: Were Explosives Used in 9/11?

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Welcome to another H2H Debate!

In our short history, this will mark the first debate of a 9/11 theme. Considering how much discussion exists on the subject, I think a lot of eyes are going to be watching this one.

  • Participants

    Pro - whatukno
    Con - Damocles

  • Guidelines For This H2H Battle

    1. Each participant will have one opening statement, three rebuttals, and one closing statement.

    2. Damocles, will open the debate.

    3. Each post has a restriction of 10,000 characters.

    4. Each post must be submitted within 48 hours of your opponent's previous post.

    5. External Links are acceptable, but no quoting of any external links. Each submission must be 100% authored by each participant.

    6. One image per post, & no more than three for the whole debate.

  • General Rules

    The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:

    1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

    2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

    3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

    4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

    5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

    6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

    7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

    8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

  • Participation

    These are the proposed terms for this debate. Participants should ensure that they understand and agree to them prior to posting to this thread.

    Once a post has been made, the terms are binding.

     


    If there are any violations of the agreed upon terms, please contact chissler via u2u. Also, when the debate has concluded, please contact me via u2u to inform me that it has closed.

    Thanks and Good Luck!




  • posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 08:10 PM
    link   
    In opening I would like to thank chissler and ATS for sponsoring this debate. I would also like to extend my thanks to whatukno for agreeing to be my debate partner in what I hope turns out to be an informative debate. I have no doubts it will be a friendly and open minded discussion on the possibilities of what may have occurred on 9-11-01.

    The events of September 11, 2001 were a tragedy for all of us and a real wake up call to the way the world works. You can apply that statement equally if you believe the governments version of events of if you subscribe to any of the numerous alternative theories behind this event.

    One of the main theories of the event that lead to the destruction of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 are that they were in some way rigged with explosives before 9-11. During the course of this debate I hope to provide some factual information about explosives, their properties, and what it really takes to pull of an operation of this magnitude. In doing so, I hope to show how unlikely it is that High Explosives were in fact used in this disaster.

    During our debate, I will not go out of my way to prove or disprove our governments version of events, my opinions of the causes of the events overall are not relevant to this discussion. I will also not attempt to prove or disprove how the buildings were actually destroyed as that is outside my area of expertise and would be nothing but speculation on my part. My stance on the issues is STRICTLY LIMITED to the use of explosives, or rather, the lack thereof

    There are also 2 very key components of my argument that must be clearly stated at the outset.
    1st is that commercial airliners did in fact strike the world trade centers.
    2nd is that the resulting impact did in fact start large fires.

    So I will not be addressing any issues relating to holograms, space lasers, etc.

    So, to begin:

    Demolitions 101
    The first things it is important to understand about demolitions are some of the basic characteristics of them.

    Charge type det velocity re factor
    Tnt 23000fps 1
    C4 26000fps 1.34
    Sheet explosive 24000fps 1.14
    Dynamite 20000fps 0.92
    Anfo* 8900fps 0.42
    Det cord 24000-32000fps

    (*anfo=ammonium nitrate fuel oil)
    (RE factor= relative effectiveness when compared to TnT)

    So the first thing you’ll notice is that with the exception of anfo, almost all of these detonate very quickly and as you can imagine a supersonic blast wave may make some noise, though that sound wave admittedly can be mitigated by using less explosive.

    So that’s a great place to go next, just how much explosive are we talking about here?
    Well if we were to use an arbitrary dimension for the core columns that is much smaller than the actual measurements (this is arbitrary I don’t have the blueprints so cannot provide an actual measurement) of 12” square we get 4 linear feet. That will give us 1.2 meters. Now, if we were to calculate using the smallest possible charge, that being a linear shape charge which typically has 1kg/m of RDX based explosive (C4) we get 1.2kg/column of explosive. This by itself seems miniscule and would make very little noise outside the building itself. However, when you multiply that times 47 (the normally accepted number of columns in just the core alone) you get 56.4kg/floor of explosives. That’s 124lbs. for anyone to think that even if you only used it to initiate the blast you wouldn’t hear 124lbs of explosives going off all over manhattan is just denial in my opinion. Because for a symmetric, or near symmetric collapse you would in fact have to detonate them all pretty much simultaneously.

    Also the fact that when a demo shot goes off, it does in fact leave behind small bits of undetonated material, shrapnel from the charge housing, bits of shrapnel from blasting caps etc. There is always some type of evidence left behind.

    The last factor I would like to present in opening is the effect on the impact of the planes on the pre-placed charges.

    Explosives will NOT detonate just by being heated or lit on fire. They will burn when exposed to flame, and when exposed to heat will dry out and harden, or they will melt. Any of these will lead to them becoming nearly useless as explosives. Also one must consider that the flames, or even the damage inflicted by the planes themselves would in fact most likely lead to damage to the firing circuits.

    So, to close my opening statement, based on the evidence we are able to collect:
    The audio/visual evidence does not support explosives being used.
    The physical evidence does not support explosives being used.
    The basic properties of the explosives themselves do not lend to the likely hood that they were in fact used.

    So ends my opening statement.

    Citation: all physical characteristic data with the exception of the LSC’s comes from FM 5-35 Engineer Field Data 1987 Chapter 6: Demolitions



    posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:41 PM
    link   
    I would also like to take the time to thank ATS and chissler for hosting and officiating this debate. I also would like to thank Damocles for agreeing to this debate. I also think that this should be a fun and informative debate.

    September 11, 2001 was a terrible attack on our country, but was it the attack that was told by the official story? I will have to delve a little into the more popular conspiracies about the events on that date to explain my position. Showing the probability, the motive and the opportunity by the New York City Port Authority, and the US Government, to set up and carry out the plan to set explosives or other devices to demolish the twin towers.

    I will show through this debate how the initial strikes by the two aircraft and the subsequent fires neither caused enough damage to all three buildings to cause the total and complete collapse. Also that had the collapse occurred due to the damage caused by both the fires and the impact of the aircraft the collapse would have occurred in a completely different fashion instead of the neat and orderly “footprint” collapse that happened in all three buildings on that day.

    There were several eyewitness accounts of blasts being heard when the collapse of be building began. These witnesses were police officers, firefighters and building employees, including Edmund McNally, WTC 2 victim, 97th floor, Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem, and Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact. Controlled demolitions have a unique sound to them and that exact same sound was heard during the near free fall collapse of the twin towers and building seven.

    I will show through this debate that the construction of the WTC towers in it’s design were constructed to take the impact of aircraft the size and fuel load comparable of the craft that struck both towers. That the fact that no aircraft struck WTC 7 and yet it collapsed completely into it’s own “footprint” leads us to conclude that explosives were planted in all three buildings and detonated on that fateful day.

    47 steel columns ran the length of each building. According to the official story several of the support columns were severed in the impacts of the aircraft the subsequent fires weakened the steel enough to cause the top floors to start a domino pancake collapse effect that continued down to the ground on both buildings. Now if this were true the building would not have collapsed so uniformly. As the steel weakened by the heat was only on the higher floors of the building and not throughout the entire structure.

    Are we to believe that an aircraft impact even though it did not cut through a majority of the support columns and though it had nearly disintegrated upon impact weakened the steel enough due to heat to effectively cause the towers to neatly and efficiently collapse into its own footprint? Not once, not twice but three times on the same day. Even though there have been other high rise buildings that have had massive fires gut the entire structure and yet they have themselves not collapsed. Are we to believe that without the aide of explosives in the buildings they collapsed so neatly, with such precision that the twin towers fell into their own footprint in a nice neat pile, the steel core supports cut in precise measurements, the concrete pulverized to a fine powder, and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement of each building for weeks afterwards?

    I will show that the outer casing of the twin towers is such that when the aircraft hit the buildings most of the craft more than likely disintegrated and could have not caused the amount of heat needed to weaken the support structure enough to cause it to begin to collapse in the first place. Nor without the use of explosives or thermite the towers could not have possibly fell in such a neat and orderly fashion.

    First let’s look at the properties of jet fuel this is a quite common substance used today. Jet fuel has a Maximum burning temperature of 980 °C (1796 °F) in an aerosol form as in it will burn up rather quickly and therefore could not possibly reach the required temperatures of 593.33 °C (1100 °F) for long enough to facilitate the softening of the steel. As anyone that has ever cooked anything knows, you must apply a constant amount of heat to something in order for it to rise to the desired temperature. While theoretically the temperature of the burning jet fuel would be enough to start softening the steel support beams it did not have the required time to soften the steel enough to facilitate the collapse.

    Second lets examine the aircraft that hit the twin towers on that day. American Airlines Flight 11, a 767-223ER, and United Airlines Flight 175, a 767-222. With a possible available fuel load of a little over 11,000 gallons the burn rate for the remaining fuel excluding the fuel initially consumed in the crash which is estimated at 80% would not have left enough fuel that only had roughly one hour to burn to weaken the steel enough to facilitate the collapse

    Third let’s look at the structure of the WTC towers. The outer shell was composed of a net of steel covered by concrete. When the aircraft struck this net it shredded the plane. Now the inertia of all of that aluminum, fuel, metal, bodies, etc. did carry the force of the impact through the building and yes it more than likely did damage some of the support columns but in all reality the damage done to the towers was not enough to cause the neat and orderly collapse. At most the damaged areas would have sheered off and collapsed down to the street. Not to mention WTC 7 which did not have the same amount of damage that occurred to tower 1 & 2 collapsed into it’s own footprint. These are the only three buildings in history that have ever had a total structural integrity failure due to fire.

    Fourth let’s look at the eye witness accounts of people on the scene that day that reported hearing multiple explosions prior to the collapse of the twin towers. Mike Pecoraro Chief Engineer for the WTC complex, reported underground explosions after the aircraft struck the building he was in. Edmund McNally phoned his wife and told her of hearing explosions below him. Louie Cacchioli reported that on the last trip up he had heard a second explosion and thought that bombs were set in the building. A NYPD Officer reported hearing an explosion then he heard the building collapse. In this video you can clearly hear one of the explosions at the world trade center. And in this interview with some New York City firefighters you can hear the explosives being used.

    It takes time to correctly set up a controlled demolition. This is an exact science. So when did whoever set up these charges have time to set both buildings up for the event? A few weeks before the attack witnesses reported that the WTC was closed and security was removed over a weekend. Several maintenance personnel not known to the regular staff were reported entering the building. This is the perfect opportunity when the explosives could have been planted.



    posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:10 AM
    link   
    Thank you Whatukno for a great opening post, and for providing an absolutely fabulous, and articulate presentation.

    Allow me to continue the debate by first pointing out to the membership of ATS that while I may disagree with my esteemed opponent, at no point will I EVER attempt to convey the message that he is misleading anyone or that he is being intentionally deceptive. Having said that, there comes a time during debate where one must assert his or her own opinions and attempt to clarify points that he feels his opponent has wrong, by mistake or misinterpretation. So please recognize that while I will attempt to clarify what I feel are “popular misconceptions”, I do so from the standpoint that I feel many people in general simply are mistaken or misinformed about what explosives can or cannot do. Let me emphasize, I do not for one second believe that whatukno is in any way trying to mislead anyone, I just recognize that the percentage of the population that have hands on experience with high explosives is fairly small. As for myself, I do of course always recognize the fact that I myself could be mistaken on a particular point and do welcome the chance to be educated should that chance arise.

    Moving on:

    My opponent has presented a lot of information on the construction of the towers and to be honest, ill not try to refute any of his research. I was a combat engineer and not a structural, civil, or mechanical engineer and as such I’m much more proficient at blowing things up than I am at building them. And therein lies the crux as it were. Having the experiences I have had, I am forced to continue to disagree with the mechanism by which the buildings fell.

    In his opening, whatukno presented a lot of eyewitness testimony on which to base his case for the use of explosives. Now, asking any trial lawyer which is preferable in a case, eyewitnesses or physical forensic evidence, they will always (or should) choose the forensics to base their cases. That’s the problem with building a case for the use of explosives on 911. There is no physical evidence to support the theory. Not a bit of leftover packing for explosives, and there should be, the blast wave will propel bits of it away before the fire of the reaction will consume it. Not a bit of a blasting cap left anywhere. But more importantly, not a single piece of steel showed any evidence of blast damage whatsoever. These facts are all important as the FIRST people on scene were firefighters, and as such would have been the most likely people to find any of these bits of evidence before the cleanup operation was started.

    So, we’re left with the eyewitnesses. Many of whom “heard an explosion” but, none of which SAW an explosion. Or an explosive device.

    We’ll come back to that in a moment.

    The human brain is a wonderful thing at times, when it has an experience it cannot account for; it tries to compare it to something already in “the database” so to speak. How many people have you ever heard talking about something unrelated to 911 and described any loud sound they heard “like an explosion” or “like a bomb going off”?
    If you are honest with yourself you will be forced to admit it’s happened several times.

    Why is that important? Because during a fire or an event like 911 there are going to be a LOT of very loud sounds that are new to the people hearing them. In retelling of the event later, they are going to try to equate their experience to something they know and can describe. Unfortunately, most people’s knowledge of explosives comes from Hollywood.

    But what about the firefighters? Well, I would venture to speculate that the majority of firefighters have actually very little training in high explosives. And why would they unless they had been in the military? For a fire company to encounter a bomb, there’s one thing you do, pull out until the bomb squad gets there.

    Though I will be the first to admit, there are things that can and do explode during fires, this however does not mean there were any bombs present.

    Which brings me to yet another point. IF the fire captains really believed there were bombs in the buildings, what were the firefighters doing in there? I was once accused of calling the firefighters cowards for asking this question but it is a very legit question. I went to night school in the mid 90’s to train as a paramedic and the one thing that was always stressed was that you can’t help anyone if you are a casualty. If you don’t believe me, I encourage any of you to simply go ask a fire captain if he would send ANYONE into a building that had the potential to have bombs in it. Don’t make it a leading question, just simply ask: “if you were called to the scene of a situation where there were people trapped in a high rise but there were bombs reported in the building, how would you proceed?” Then leave the question hanging and see what he says. You may be surprised.

    However, let’s take a close look at what evidence there is and discuss how it is used in discussion in general.

    Normally I wouldn’t want to nit pick on any part of my opponent’s presentation, but for this one part I simply must in order to clarify my stance on the topic.


    . A NYPD Officer reported hearing an explosion then he heard the building collapse.

    I would like to clarify; he heard “what sounded like” an explosion. Was this clearly HE going off or simply a very loud noise, which i'm sure we can all agree that should things be failing in a building prior to initiation of collapse there would in fact be loud noises inside a building.



    In this video you can clearly hear one of the explosions at the world trade center.

    Having seen this video a few times I feel the need to point out a few things. That they are in NYC and it appears to be on 911 I would not argue, however looking at the background of the scene it shows one can conclude that at least one tower has already fallen. Beyond that we have no idea where they are in the city or what time of day it is. I will stand by my opinion that not all explosions heard during a fire or disaster are the result of bombs. But beyond that I won’t attempt to say this video was NOT related to the events of the day beyond the circumstantial.



    And in this interview with some New York City firefighters you can hear the explosives being used.

    This video shows in my own opinion, firefighters comparing the centers fall to what one would expect to see or hear during a controlled demo, but, unless I missed it, not one mentions the towers specifically or wtc7. the follow up to that is the collapse itself. As for myself, I do NOT hear a single demo charge going off during the collapse that the video shows. It is my belief that any charges would be clearly heard over the sound of the fall due to the speed of sound and the fact that the pressure and therefore the sound wave of an HE detonation in fact exceed the speed of sound. I believe you would hear, at the very least, the charge that initiates the blast, but if you were to watch this or this you would see that this clearly does not happen. Especially when you compare this to a known controlled demo where you can still here explosives going off after the building starts to fall

    So again I must stand by my assertation that based on the available evidence, there were NO high explosives used in the world trade centers on 9-11



    posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:33 PM
    link   
    Thank you Damocles, your rebuttal was both informative and sincere. I appreciate your ability to disagree without becoming rude or immature, this speaks highly of you and I thank you and respect you for it. Your opinions are quite valid, I respect them and they are what make ATS a great website to visit.

    And thus back to the debate…

    In your opening argument your expertise became apparent in the use of H.E. for the purposes of demolishing a building. I do hope you don’t mind but I will borrow some of the information that you had set forth in your opening statement for this brief mathematical problem.


    Charge type det velocity re factor
    Tnt 23000fps 1
    C4 26000fps 1.34
    Sheet explosive 24000fps 1.14
    Dynamite 20000fps 0.92
    Anfo* 8900fps 0.42
    Det cord 24000-32000fps


    How much explosive would it take to take down the three buildings that day? Each of the examples above would prove effective enough to take out a large structure if used in the correct proportions. However the one that strikes me as being able to be used correctly for the slicing that was done to each core column. This is sheet explosive or Series 2000 – RDX. It seems to me that you could wrap the columns of each third floor with this and causes a cascade effect taking the buildings down in the quick and orderly fashion that we all saw time and time again.

    And you are completely right when you said

    IF the fire captains really believed there were bombs in the buildings, what were the firefighters doing in there? I was once accused of calling the firefighters cowards for asking this question but it is a very legit question.
    in a situation where there is the possibility of explosives in a building they do not send in personnel that are not experienced in E.O.D. But to defend the firefighters on that day a bit there were some communications problems as there always is when using radios in high rise buildings. Repeater systems were not being used properly and or not at all. Firefighters for the most part will try and evacuate a building of all civilians.

    The problem is thus. At what speed does a building fall on its own compared to the nearly free fall speed that a building that is undergoing a controlled demolition? The twin towers certainly acted as if they had collapsed at free fall speed but how could that possibly happen? There was only a small portion of the building that was actually damaged.

    To believe that the twin towers fell without the aide of explosives would also lead one to conclude that there was nothing to stop each and every floor from delaying the previous floor’s progress as it fell, namely the core of each building. If this core structure was so weak how did it keep the building up in the first place? The core of each building kept the structure sound for all that time yet because of a crash by aircraft that met the expectations of the engineers that designed the structure. The two buildings collapsed completely into its own footprint.

    Time (squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
    Time (squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
    Time = 9.2

    So from the above formula we can conclude that the core of the towers could not have possibly existed at all in order for the towers to have fallen at the near free fall speeds that they did. Or if it had existed, it was obviously made from balsa wood.

    In my opening argument I told you what were the factors that clearly show that the twin towers collapse were in fact caused by a controlled demolition and not simply by the Boeing 767s crashing into the sides of the building. In this rebuttal I will show you what physically happened to the plane and the building according to the official story, and why it is wrong and therefore show why explosives must have been used to facilitate the demolition of the world trade center towers.

    In this image you can clearly see the inner core of the building as well as the outer shell being constructed…
    The construction of the outer structure of the WTC towers took into account the eventuality of a large commercial airliner namely a Boeing 707 which is relatively the same size weight and fuel load as a Boeing 767. Both the WTC towers were capable of sustaining an impact and the subsequent explosion of an airliner crash into them without danger of collapse. The fact of the matter is that both buildings took significant wind pressures every day being as tall as they were without danger of collapse.

    The outer shell of the WTC towers was a mesh construction. The impact that would be displaced by the screen of the outer shell would not allow for the amount of damage that occurred to the inner core that was told by official story. The outer shell of the WTC Buildings was constructed in a manner that if a large commercial jetliner had crashed into the building it would have shredded upon impact as can be shown in this simple gif image… The official story accounts that the aircraft would have been whole during much of the entry into the building severing many of the support structures and creating a fire that weakened the other support beams. Therefore creating a vertical load too high for the rest of the building to bear and therefore caused the collapse. However that physically could not make any sense as the vertical load was there the entire time and the impact of the plane only lightened the load. The stress of the weight was placed on the floors above the impact zone and that part should have broke away and collapsed around the building and fell. However we all saw the twin towers collapse in a pancake effect into its own footprint.

    On Saturday July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State building in New York near the 79th floor. While this aircraft was fueled with diesel and that fuel would have burned at a much lower temperature. The structure of the Empire State building did not weaken enough for a collapse. February 12th, 2005 The Windsor building in Madrid Spain was completely engulfed in flames for more than 18 hours and yet it did not collapse. The fire was roughly the same temperature as the world trade center fires yet the structure remained standing. This building was of similar construction to the WTC buildings except that it did not have the surrounding structural casing, which made the twin towers more resilient to fire. Yet this building did not collapse as the twin towers collapsed in 90 minutes of the event occurring.

    The collapse of the WTC buildings were attributed to a pancake effect of one floor falling hitting the floor below and the entire process continuing all the way down to ground level. However, if this were the case the buildings would have taken a lot longer than they did to collapse, as only the internal structural columns on the upper floors were damaged by the aircraft. The collapse and destruction of the entire building due to the floors above would have produced random size chunks of concrete, twisted, bent, and malformed steel and much more of the structure intact that was actually left. Needless to say that the collapse would have been uneven and the fact that the buildings collapsed in such a uniform manner not to mention that the second tower that was hit by the aircraft collapsed first leads one to conclude that a controlled demolition.

    WTC 7 is the key to debunking the official story, and showing the truth that explosives were indeed used in the collapse of the world trade center. This building was not damaged by aircraft as the other two were. The damage that was caused was consistent with the other buildings at the world trade center that day however this was the only other building to collapse. It is strange however that this is also the third high rise building in all of recorded history to collapse due to fire.

    So why did WTC 7 collapse? It was not damaged in the same fashion as the twin towers. It burned for longer than the other two buildings yet in the same way albeit much latter in the day WTC 7 did succumb to a complete and total collapse in the same exact way as the other two buildings.




    Mod Edit: Removing Image.

    [edit on 15-4-2007 by chissler]



    posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 07:42 AM
    link   
    Whatukno, first let me commend you once again on another articulate and well presented post. It’s been a wonderfully refreshing change to discuss these ideas with someone who has taken the time to lay out his ideas the way you have. Win or lose in this debate I will think of this experience as a positive one and hope that others in the community can benefit from your example.

    And with no further ado…

    As to if your borrowing my data would bother me? Not in the least, that is why I am trying to present my information the way I do. Ultimately I don’t really care if people believe there were explosives used on 911, my ultimate goal is to provide accurate information that people can use to form their own opinions. If you or anyone else can see the information I provide, and then verify it on your/their own and still believe there were explosives used, then I am ok with that, at least you are forming an EDUCATED opinion and doing so with an open mind. If that happens I will not feel I have wasted my time.
    .

    At this time I would like to revise some information I posted in my opening statement, and it will also allow me to comment on this:


    the one that strikes me as being able to be used correctly for the slicing that was done to each core column. This is sheet explosive or Series 2000 – RDX..


    When i posted my initial calculations I was going off data I had from a long time ago. In researching for a different thread here on ATS I came across a more efficient LSC that would reduce the explosive requirement for the job. However, if you will note in the section I quoted myself on, I used the arbitrary dimension of 12” square. Since then, I have found that the core columns at the 66 th floor were 54”x22” (link) and appeared to be roughly 2” thick so that’s what I'm going to use for the calculations.

    So, by taking the yield for the more efficient LSC I found which is 425g/m and multiplying out using the core columns at the 66th floor as our basis we get:
    54+54+22+22=152 inches.
    152/39=3.9m
    3.9*425=1657.5g of rdx based explosive
    1657.5=1.66KG of rdx
    1.66*2.2=3.65lbs of explosive

    I like metric but for presentation purposes prefer to work in English as it just seems more familiar to most people

    So, given that we have 3.65 pounds of explosive on each column, and we have 47 columns we end up with 172 pounds of explosive per floor, assuming we’re ONLY cutting the core columns and none of the truss supports or perimeter columns.

    So given your question about every 3rd floor and using the same model for each building regardless of impact areas, and just to keep it consistent we’ll only go to floor 70 on each building we are then rigging 23 floors to detonate. That would require 3956lbs of explosive and to put that into perspective for the explosive we are using that would be 4230 linear feet of ordinance. The amount doesn’t concern me so much as the fact that we are still expected to believe that we’re detonating 3956lbs of explosive in less than 20 seconds (I'm being very generous) and apparently, there is still confusion over whether or not this happened. I simply cannot personally make that leap.

    (the sheet explosives would require 1156.2lbs/floor.)

    I am glad that you agree about the fire chief and his not sending in his people if he felt there was a danger from secondary devices. You also raised a point with the radio comms that I should follow up on. Electric blasting caps are kind of fickle, and therefore not the preferred method to prime the entire ring main. It is safer and more predictable to use detcord to go to each blasting cap and use electric caps only to prime the initial shot. The reason is that even low wattage radio transmitters can cause a spark to jump across the gap inside the cap and therefore cause a detonation before you want it to. Any manual on explosives will tell u that the MINIMUM safe distance from any radio less than 30w (typical of handheld radios, cell phones, Bluetooth devices etc) is 30m. Does anyone think it’s possible to get 100ft from a cell phone inside the WTC?
    Even when you’re not on a call they transmit, either GPS or just to keep in sync with the local towers. Not to mention the tower on the roof of the building was well over 30w and therefore had to have a much longer standoff distance to any electric caps.

    The reason I’m emphasizing the point about radios and blasting caps is this. There had to be at least ONE electric blasting cap on each floor for it to have been timed so perfectly, and that is assuming the impact of the planes didn’t damage the circuit or the explosive.

    So for anyone to believe there were explosives in the buildings you have to be ready to believe that they had some way to magically shield the caps without interfering with them, or that someone had come in and lit a fuse. (time fuse is the preferred way to initiate a demo shot in the military at least) Sure, it could be done, I suppose “magically” was the wrong term but I think you get the point. Leaving an electric blasting cap in place ready to use in that environment was a recipe for disaster and raised the risk factor of any black op exponentially.


    The collapse of the WTC buildings were attributed to a pancake effect of one floor falling hitting the floor below and the entire process continuing all the way down to ground level.


    I stated in my opening that I was going to avoid discussing WHY the buildings did fail in absence of explosives, however I just wanted to point out to my colleague that the “pancake” theory is not the current theory coming from the “official side”. It is been stated that the pancake effect was a side effect and not a causation effect. IOW, the floors pancaked because they were falling, they were not falling because they were pancaking. NIST FAQ’s


    WTC 7 is the key to debunking the official story, and showing the truth that explosives were indeed used in the collapse of the world trade center. This building was not damaged by aircraft as the other two were. The damage that was caused was consistent with the other buildings at the world trade center that day however this was the only other building to collapse.


    I have to respectfully disagree and here’s why. We don’t know exactly to what extent WTC7 was damaged. We honestly have no clue how badly it was damaged as the reports from the scene vary person to person. One guy says light damage and another guy says there’s a 20 story hole in the building. More importantly, no one was able to describe just how deep this hole in the side of the building went. There are no clear photos of the damaged side that I have seen. I have yet to get a clear picture of the damage from any video I have seen. And lastly, just like the falls of WTC’s 1&2, there’s simply NO evidence of any explosive devices being used.

    A lack of a solution to problem A does not mean that C is the right answer simply because it “fits the profile” in some aspects. I feel that those that would believe, and have you believe, that explosives are the ONLY answer to the question at hand, which is “what caused the collapse of these buildings”, is a case of jumping to conclusions.

    I wish to thank you all for the time you spent reading this and hope you continue to watch this debate and read the presentations that my worthy opponent and I are providing with an open mind.

    And of course, a healthy dose of skepticism no matter which side of the debate you find yourself on.

    Peace.



    posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:43 PM
    link   
    Before I begin, I would like to again thank my worthy opponent Damocles for his wonderfully written and well argumented rebuttal. During this debate I have gained more respect for Damocles and this has been one of the most enlightening and well argued discussions I have been a part of.

    Hopefully I have shown that the simple impact of the two aircraft into the building could not have possibly alone caused the collapse of the WTC towers 1 & 2. And thus another reason must be to blame for the cause of the collapse on that day. Physics dictate that the amount of damage that occurred to both towers was not enough to facilitate the complete collapse of both towers in the same exact manner.


    A lack of a solution to problem A does not mean that C is the right answer simply because it “fits the profile” in some aspects. I feel that those that would believe, and have you believe that explosives are the ONLY answer to the question at hand, which is “what caused the collapse of these buildings”, is a case of jumping to conclusions.


    Of course you are absolutely right; we should not just jump to any conclusion without the facts. As to do so opens up a world of speculation and that does not do anyone any good and does not shed light on the truth about the events that happened on that fateful day.

    A famous quote by the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, that fits quite well in this debate, “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    Motive and Opportunity are what investigators look for in a criminal investigation. We shall use these same techniques when looking at the probability that explosives were indeed used in the demolition of the Twin Towers.

    Now in order to prove my point to suggest that the attacks of 9/11 were a staged event and not a horrible terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda one must look at the motives into the attack. We must ask the question why in order to know the reasons into how. Motive is the key to show that the towers were purposely demolished. So why the WTC towers? If the terrorists were to attack structures in New York that symbolize America why the Twin Towers? They were not that interesting of a target after all. The first target in and around New York for a terrorist attack that pops out in my mind would be the Statue of Liberty. This is a symbol of America and therefore a natural choice for a terrorist attack. Also the Empire State Building would also be a more tempting target to a terrorist attack than the twin towers. So why the Twin Towers? Well in order to further my argument that there indeed were an inside job and that explosives were used to take out these two huge structures, we have to look at why.

    The WTC complex owned by the New York City Port Authority was a huge loss financially to the city of New York. They cost more money to maintain and keep than they generated in revenue. The lease holder Larry A. Silverstein signs a 99 year lease for the WTC complex. It is not logical for a 69 year old man to lease anything for 99 years. Im 31 years old and there would be no way that I would lease anything for 99 years. A 99 year lease would only mean that Mr. Silverstein intended to lease the property for the rest of the time that the property was to exist. Fortunately for Mr. Silverstein he did not have to wait long for the property to pay off. Also it was also fortunate for the New York City Port Authority as they would no longer have to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings. Of course Mr. Silverstein would also have to place a rather large insurance policy on the property. But in the end it did net this man a healthy payoff in the amount of 7,2 billion Dollars. Not a bad return for his investment.

    Now for opportunity, as my opponent would have more expertise in this area than I do admittedly I would have to give credit that I don’t have any idea what kind of explosives were used in the buildings. But I am sure that explosives were indeed used. The opportunity for people to plant these explosives came when the towers underwent a 30 hour power-down event prior to 9/11 this is just such an event that would facilitate the planting of explosive devices in the building as it was during this time that any video record of a demolitions crew would have not been recorded.


    I have to respectfully disagree and here’s why. We don’t know exactly to what extent WTC7 was damaged. We honestly have no clue how badly it was damaged as the reports from the scene vary person to person. One guy says light damage and another guy says there’s a 20 story hole in the building. More importantly, no one was able to describe just how deep this hole in the side of the building went. There are no clear photos of the damaged side that I have seen. I have yet to get a clear picture of the damage from any video I have seen. And lastly, just like the falls of WTC 1&2, there’s simply NO evidence of any explosive devices being used.


    Damocles is right, there is no evidence of the extent of the damage to WTC 7 I would also like to have shown that the collateral damage caused to building 7 was not sufficient enough to cause it’s collapse. While researching for damage done to the building I have failed to uncover any good evidence that the building was that damaged at all. I have however found a building albeit shorter than WTC7 that I believe had sustained significantly more damage than building 7 and yet it did not collapse. This building was a well known target of a domestic terrorist attack. Much of the building was severely damaged by the attack yet it did not collapse. I am referring to the Murrah Federal Building or the OKC Bombing. This building was blown nearly in half by a rental truck full of home made explosives and yet it did not collapse. The damage done to this building was as severe as or more so than the damage done to building 7 on 9/11 yet it did not collapse.

    So in order to determine how WTC 7 collapsed we have to understand why it collapsed in the first place. It has been determined that the Twin Towers did not sustain enough damage for the collapse to have taken place. Now we have the enigma of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane that day. It burned all day long and at the end of the day it collapsed in a strange way. It collapsed exactly as the other two buildings did, into it’s own footprint.

    Building 7 was an interesting building indeed. Certainly it would warrant a lot of investigation as its tenants included the following government offices. IRS Regional Council, U.S. Secret Service, C.I.A., Securities & Exchange Commission, Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt. Such highly important government offices yet the building due to fire collapsed and the investigation glossed over rather quickly.

    What is also interesting and poignant to show that these buildings were scheduled for collapse was the BBC Report of Building 7s collapse 23 minutes prior to the event happening. It is interesting that a news agency was so adept at reporting the event that they could and did report the event prior to the event taking place. Without foreknowledge of the event there is no possibility for them to have known. Also Mr. Silverstein was quoted as saying Pull it Now as many of us that are not familiar with demolition terminology, to “pull” a building is to start the demolition charges that will take a building down in a controlled way. Many have said and Mr. Silverstein has been reported as saying that what he meant by saying “Pull it” he was referring to the fire crews to pull out of the building. Most people do not refer to a group of humans as it, they would refer to a group of people as “them”. So it does not make any sense that Mr. Silverstein would say “Pull it” when he would be more correct to have said “Pull them”



    posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:12 AM
    link   
    Well, once again my esteemed opponent has laid out an articulate and thought provoking testimony for his case. As usual, it has really brought this debate to a new level and has kept me on my toes. Whatukno has throughout this debate made a very compelling case for his argument, and has done so with dignity and class.


    Hopefully I have shown that the simple impact of the two aircraft into the building could not have possibly alone caused the collapse of the WTC towers 1 & 2. And thus another reason must be to blame for the cause of the collapse on that day. Physics dictate that the amount of damage that occurred to both towers was not enough to facilitate the complete collapse of both towers in the same exact manner.


    Let no one say you have not built a very compelling case, but I must disagree with you. Not because I can personally explain why the buildings fell, I cannot and have stated so many times and for me to offer up any explanation would be speculation at best. But more in the fact that while you are not alone in making statements about the laws of physics etc, as many already know there are those within the physics, engineering, and architectural fields that agree with you; they are in fact the minority. The overwhelming majority of people in those related fields, while not able to fully explain the collapse, have NOT spoken out claiming the government is hiding anything. If those that find the government’s version to far fetched to be believed were the majority, then the professional organizations as a whole would be publishing press releases to the effect. Has the ASME, ASCE, or any of the other academic organizations published their dissent with the NIST findings? If they have, I am ignorant of this fact.

    Now, some would argue that that is simply because the members of these organizations have either been threatened or paid off. But to make that claim is actually fairly arrogant for anyone to do. Here’s why. Most of us, if asked “if you could prove the government had destroyed the twin towers by controlled demolition, and were threatened or offered money, would you keep quiet? Or would you, despite the money or the risk take the news to the people?” I think most of us; at least those of us here at ATS, would like to say that regardless of consequence, we would take our information public. Money isn’t everything, jobs can be replaced, and we all die. So, we all sit here, safe behind our keyboards and think to ourselves “no way could they keep me quiet”, and at the same time think that ALL these other people would. Vanity to say the least.

    So to me at least, I find that all the things that so many find “obvious” are not necessarily that obvious. Most notably, where it comes to the use of explosives.

    But, I digress.

    In your last rebuttal you talked about motive and opportunity. You then laid out a VERY good case concerning both.

    I would like to take a few moments to touch on some of these ideas.

    As to motive, I simply must ask, by show of hands if necessary, how many have read the al queda “handbook”? Some have claimed that this book is nothing more than a work of fiction published by the CIA as more ‘evidence’ against al queda. Well, if that were true, why take the time to author the chapters that were not released to the public and bury them on the back side of a DOJ computer server that you have to have special access to get to? No, if one was to read the book, you are left with a very profound sense of the enemy’s motivations.

    Now, as to opportunity, there could be speculation of all kinds in regards to the 30hr power down and whether or not the job “could” have been completed during that time. And, ill admit, its possible; given enough men who all had very specific tasks laid out before hand. But each man you bring into the job is one more potential leak later on. For a crew of 10 to have done the job in 30hrs is a flight of fancy at best IMO. Also consider the fact that they would have plant a very large amount of explosives, run all the det cord or firing wires, at least in some cases cut into the drywall, replace said drywall, paint over it, clean up, and do all this in the dark in under 30hrs? possible but….far fetched?

    Now, as to some of the case being made for WTC7, rather than to beat a dead horse by restating all of my previous points, I’d like to talk about practicality.

    For a moment, let’s just work on the assumption that the whole thing WAS a government black op. In doing so we must all admit that it would take very, very careful planning and coordination to bring this off without a hitch, and if planned properly, would leave NO evidence of it being a black op at all.

    That said, why would you leave building 7 standing until many hours after the fall of the south tower when you had a perfect opportunity to disguise the fall of the building as just an effect of the collapse of the south tower? The hallmark of a covert operation is one that leaves no evidence that it was in fact a covert operation and yet we are expected to believe that the brilliant minds that had planned the rest of the day with nary a flaw simply “forgot” to push the plunger on building 7? It just makes no sense when you think about it considering that all they had to do was wait until the dust cloud was near that level and then simply destroy building 7 and no one would have noticed.

    Also, there is the matter of silversteins comments about “pulling it”. He says in his quote that he was talking to the fire cheif and they decided to pull it. Well, if he was in fact talking about the building and not the people or team inside the building, then we are left with two possibilities.
    A) The incident commander had decided that for safety it would be best to pull the building and ordered it destroyed.
    B) The fire chief was in on it.
    Now, I don’t know anyone willing to go so far as to say the fire chief was in on it, and if he did make the call, where’s the documentation? There’s a saying in the emergency services that “if its not written down it didn’t happen”. Had he made the call, it would be documented. Thing is, there’s no rational reason to pull the building…I mean since no one can believe it DID collapse on its own, why would anything think it WOULD collapse on its own?

    Also consider this in regards to silversteins comments…IF this was a black op, then the decision to drop building 7 had been made long before 911 anyway. So, what decision was there to make in regards to “pulling” anyway?

    No, for me, I personally think that when silverstein was quoted as saying “pull it” that he did in fact mean the team (which most documents would leave you believing that the teams had been pulled long before that anyway) and that in retelling this story on television silverstein was attempting to make himself out to be the kind of guy that was more worried about lives than his buildings. In short, I think he was trying to take credit for a decision he had nothing to do with in reality simply to boost his public image.

    So, in closing this rebuttal I would like to again commend my opponent for a great presentation, however I am still left without anything at all that to me at least proves that High Explosives were in FACT the cause of the ultimate demise of the WTC buildings.



    posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:29 AM
    link   
    Once again my brilliant opponent has shown elegance and intelligence in his latest rebuttal. Throughout this debate he has come back with tact and intellect that has made this debate both enjoyable and challenging. I have found in Damocles both a keen intellect and a tenacious fighter that has earned my respect and hopefully friendship.

    Now for my final rebuttal in this debate…


    Has the ASME, ASCE, or any of the other academic organizations published their dissent with the NIST findings? If they have, I am ignorant of this fact.

    Now, some would argue that that is simply because the members of these organizations have either been threatened or paid off.


    It has been said that the only way to keep a secret between two people is if one of them is dead. Now an operation of this magnitude would require at least a few dozen people in the loop knowing at least a little bit about what was really going on and unfortunately those people are not going to come forward any time soon. I would expect that decades down the road when some of these people are old and have little or nothing left to loose then you will have some credible people come forward that will refute the official story and bring forth testimony about when and how events were set into motion. However now you won’t because the majority of popular opinion still supports the official storyline. Anyone that would dissent the official story at this point would be looked upon with contempt and skepticism, not to mention the fact that they would also be ridiculed about the subject endlessly and their carriers destroyed.

    Now to respond to the allegation that members of these organizations were threatened or paid off. I myself disagree that anyone besides a select few were paid off. I also doubt that many were threatened. The easiest way to keep someone quiet is to not let them have the data that would cause them to question the official story. The only one that can be conclusively proven to have profited from the collapse of the twin towers was Mr Silverstein.


    So to me at least, I find that all the things that so many find “obvious” are not necessarily that obvious. Most notably, where it comes to the use of explosives.


    We sometimes don’t let our ears hear or our eyes see that which we cannot account for. The popular theory that thermite was used in the demolition of the twin towers comes from several pictures where sparks and melting metal was seen from some windows. Now thermite is a simple mixture of aluminum and iron oxide. (for safety purposes I won’t disclose the actual recipe.) It is however a simple substance to create. However I tend to lean away from the use of thermite in the explosive theory because thermite is generally a powder and would loose much of its properties if made into a malleable substance. I personally have seen a cup of thermite burn its way through an engine block in seconds. However the problem remains that it is most effective in a powder form and therefore would not make for a good way to cut the required structural supports and facilitate the complete demolition of the buildings.

    Now having said that, I would like to point out a few oddities that lead one to believe that the destruction of these buildings in fact was a controlled demolition and not a horrific causality of the terrorist attacks on that day.

    One there is the fact that buildings surrounding ground zero while having all of the windows broken out of them did not collapse, WTC 7 was further away from the twin towers than many of these buildings yet it collapsed and these buildings that were a stones throw away did not suffer the same fate. The fact remains that all the buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 were buildings in the world trade center complex. The buildings surrounding the complex are still standing to this day and in fact are still occupied and still being used.
    As you can see from this graphic the only buildings that were destroyed or were so damaged that they were to be destroyed were buildings at the World Trade Center. There are buildings that are closer to the towers than WTC 7 that are still standing. These buildings at the time did receive structural damage, but since have been repaired.

    Two Let me reiterate the fact that the twin towers were indeed designed for impacts by large commercial jetliners. Also that they were routinely battered by strong winds on a daily basis, for which they were also designed to withstand. The effect of wind on a structure I can attest to, living in Florida and have gone through hurricane Charlie. The twin towers were subjected to routine punishment and held strong. Also never in history before or since has a skyscraper completely collapsed into it’s own footprint due to fire.

    Three Serendipitously FEMA was on site the day before the actual event. For a “mock” simulation and training. I realize that the link refers to the N.Y. Department of OEM but those departments defer directly to FEMA. (believe me it’s true, I have dealt with OEM and FEMA personally)


    As to motive, I simply must ask, by show of hands if necessary, how many have read the Al Qaeda “handbook”?


    John P. O'Neill sure did but I will get to him in a moment.

    I will agree that Al Qaeda has it in for the United States and would love the opportunity to do major damage to us, and I will not deny their involvement. However there is plenty of compelling evidence that the United States government knew that the attacks were to take place and that they allowed them to carry it out. But this does take us away from the matter at hand that the destruction of the twin towers was in fact a planned controlled demolition and not just a terrorist attack. When you have a patsy ready for the fall that is ready to take the blame why stop them? This allows for probable deniability which is the warm blanket of any great conspiracy.
    Now let us look at the world’s most unlucky person. John P. O'Neill. One of America’s top anti terrorism experts. Working for the FBI quits his job, takes up a new position at the WTC and on his second day on the job 9/11 happens, and he looses his life. Now it seems strange that a man that was an expert in Al Qaeda knowing the intricacies of this terrorist organization as he would have. Takes a job at the very building that is struck by this attack. Now I am not claiming that the twin towers were destroyed because of something this man knew and they were trying to rub this poor fellow out. That would be like solving a simple argument with napalm.
    What I am trying to say about this is here is a man that is an expert in anti terrorism. He investigates the 1993 attack on the WTC knows the players knows the game and he gives it up to work at the very building that he once investigated and it ends up costing him his life.


    Now, as to opportunity, there could be speculation of all kinds in regards to the 30hr power down and whether or not the job “could” have been completed during that time. And, ill admit, its possible; given enough men who all had very specific tasks laid out before hand. But each man you bring into the job is one more potential leak later on. For a crew of 10 to have done the job in 30hrs is a flight of fancy at best IMO. Also consider the fact that they would have plant a very large amount of explosives, run all the det cord or firing wires, at least in some cases cut into the drywall, replace said drywall, paint over it, clean up, and do all this in the dark in under 30hrs? possible but….far fetched?


    But not impossible, these are the same people that can and sometimes do build entire cities in the desert in less than a week. There are freight elevators in the WTC buildings these elevators are generally designed to lift large loads. It rather far fetched that they would have done this without people realizing that something was going on. However it is not impossible to get this job done. Having worked briefly in new construction, I can attest to seeing drywall being cut and replaced in less than a couple of hours, including paint. Of course depending on where it was located a desk would have covered up the noticeable hole in the wall nicely.

    Some people take a secrecy oath seriously, I am sure that people that were in the know would have been screened very closely to see if they would be a potential leak latter on.


    why would you leave building 7 standing until many hours after the fall of the south tower when you had a perfect opportunity to disguise the fall of the building as just an effect of the collapse of the south tower?


    Again we have to look at plausible deniability in this case. Had building 7 collapsed at the same time as the twin towers everyone would know that something was up. In a performance for a wide public audience timing is everything. One must wait for the opportune moment to gain the utmost effect on a delivery. Building 7 was coming down that day but had it come down at the exact same time as the twin towers people would scream bull (expletive) and thus the whole charade would have been blown.

    Now to end this rebuttal phase by congratulating Damocles on his well presented arguments. I have been in many debates in my life and this one will stick out in my mind for years to come.



    posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 12:39 AM
    link   
    Well, it is, as they say, down to this. I would like to once again take an opportunity to thank chissler and ATS for sponsoring this debate. I would like to also thank my opponent whatukno, who has conducted himself with dignity and class throughout this debate and has in doing marked himself as a gentleman and an intellectual.

    During the course of this debate my opponent has built a very strong case for the use of some external mechanism that lead to the destruction of the world trade center buildings. While compelling, I do have to state that I believe that not only his case, but those of many others in the truth movement is based on incomplete evidence. Of course, the same can be said for the government’s case as well, but that’s not entirely the point of this debate. The point is less in the “why” and more in the “how” in my opinion. While I will admit that the “why” can be a great indicator of the “how”, what happens to the “why” should the “how” become suspect?

    Much of the basis for any of the alternative theories to the destruction of the towers lies in a general distrust of our own government. Is the government capable of committing such a heinous act against its own people? It is my opinion that many of those that subscribe to alternative theories already had an inherent distrust of our government and then, when presented with a situation not readily explainable, filled in the blanks. I mean this as no insult to anyone, but when looked at objectively, it does make sense. The thing is, they may not be entirely wrong. I won’t ever claim they are. Where I disagree is in the actual mechanism that would have been used.

    Case and point. “the fall of the towers should not have been caused by the damage of the impacts and the fires alone. On top of that the buildings fell faster than they should have based on (insert favorite physics law here)”. At this point when asked why the towers did fall, people fill in the blank with what makes sense to them…they were obviously brought down with high explosives.

    The problem is this: there is no evidence of explosives being used. Absolutely no physical evidence of HE whatsoever. Sure, there were things that “sounded” like explosions, but is that uncommon in a fire? No one saw any explosive devices. No one saw any actual explosions. Nearly all examples of “explosives” being used do in reality have very mundane or logical explanations. The “squibs” can be explained when you look at some of the videos and can see that the force behind them is continuous which is exactly opposite what you would expect in an HE detonation. There is no explosion at the onset of the collapse, which is NECESSARY for this to even be considered a plausible explanation. .

    There are many within the truth movement that understand physics, engineering, architecture and so on and so forth that are all stumped by the destruction of the towers and are left with the same conclusion, it was high explosives. But I am personally then left with the question of, how many of those people really understand explosives?

    To believe the controlled demolition theory, you have to take several things on faith.

    You have to believe that the government was able to sneak in a rather large number of people who were then able to carry many hundreds of pounds of explosives up 70+ flights of stairs (remember the elevators wont work during power downs) and each make many trips.

    You have to believe that they were able to access the core columns on each of the floors being prepped, in the dark at times, and restore the walls to their previous states.

    You have to believe they could then run 1000’s of feet of detcord or firing wires inconspicuously to a fairly central point.

    You have to believe that they were able to put the planes EXACTLY where they were intended to minimize the damage to the explosives in those areas.

    You have to believe that the explosives in the impact zones were able to survive the damage and fire without a hitch. Because it doesn’t take much to figure out what would happen should some of the charges fail to fire. The building doesn’t drop as planned and you have leftover evidence that some firefighter who’s not on the payroll could find in the cleanup phase.

    And all this had to be done in a few weekends for weeks/months in advance. And they just happened to be lucky enough that no one that came in to fix any of the other countless things that break down in an office building weekly noticed anything suspicious.
    In a building that had been the target of terrorism before.

    And for me the biggest leap of faith comes when you think about the men involved. Sure, ill admit our government can do some really sick things, but the explosives would not have been placed by the President, Vice President, Larry Silverstein, ANY General, or any of a number of govt. officials.
    Those explosives would have been placed by guys, who at the end of the day are just like me. Just like you. Just ordinary guys who we are expected to believe have the moral flexibility to KNOW they are killing their own fellow citizens and are never going to speak. This would NOT have been a 10 man job. This would have been a significant operation and my opponent was right in his last rebuttal saying that two men can keep a secret if 1 of them is dead.

    So, all of this requires blind faith. To believe those towers were brought down by a controlled demolition involving high explosives IS a test of faith because, much like the existence of any god, there is no physical proof.

    What did bring down the world trade center buildings? I have no idea. What I can tell you is that in my professional opinion, after trying to work out possible scenarios that would explain it by use of HE many, many, many times, is that I don’t believe it was high explosives.

    In closing; my opponent has laid out a great case for the use of high explosives and I would encourage anyone to really read it with an open mind and really look into the evidence he has presented. But at the same time I challenge each of you to spend an equal amount of time researching the physical characteristics of explosives and learn what they can or can’t do.

    Once you have done that, revisit the case and see if HE still fits the equation.

    You may be surprised.



    posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:15 AM
    link   
    This has been a great debate, I would like to congratulate my worthy opponent Damocles for his well thought out and well written responses. You have not made this an easy debate and you should be commended for your arguments. I would like to thank Chissler and ATS for the opportunity for this debate and look forward to the response.

    For my closing argument I am going to make the following points…

    1. We know that the twin towers were designed in its construction to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707. The aircraft that were used were a Boeing 747-200, and a Boeing 747-200ER both comparable in size, speed, weight, and fuel capacity. These aircraft did not have a full fuel load having only being fueled enough for the trips they were scheduled to take that day. Upon impact a majority of the available fuel load was used up in the initial fireball. The remaining jet fuel, while being capable of attaining the heat sufficient enough to weaken structural steel did not have the time, nor did it weaken enough of the structure to facilitate the complete collapse of the twin towers. Nor was the available fuel located in the office furniture, desks, chairs, drywall, able to keep the heat level hot enough to weaken the internal core of the building enough to allow the collapse of the twin towers in the classic pancake effect. Also heat does not cut metal as was seen in the aftermath of the collapse.

    2. We know that amazingly the only buildings that were destroyed were the buildings at the WTC complex, buildings 1, 2 & 7. Surrounding buildings while severely damaged by the collapse of the twin towers are still standing, and still being used to this day. If explosives were indeed not used, and the collapses were the result of only the impact of the two aircraft, the damage would not have been as severe for one and if somehow the buildings were destroyed by impacts from the aircraft, the damage pattern would have been far different. However we have here a complete and total collapse of these three buildings. To site an example of a building collapse due to progressive structural failure we must look at The Ronan Point Tower Apartment Case where due to inadequate construction this building did have a progressive collapse but it was not a total global collapse.

    3. Larry Silverstein leases the World Trade Center Complex for a period of 99 years, longer than his own life expectancy, longer than any reasonable term on a lease, unless the person was to expect to lease the property for the remainder of the usable period of time the property would be in existence. The property a fiscally loosing investment for the New York City Port Authority is not a wise investment for anyone to buy into. The WTC complex cost more to maintain than it generated in revenue, until the attacks, when it suddenly became a quite profitable property for Mr. Silverstein to have invested in. Especially after successfully arguing that the attacks were two separate incidents and thus doubling his return on the insurance on the property.

    4. The New York Office of Emergency Management was prepared the day prior to the event for a catastrophe of the magnitude of 9/11. Serendipitously and amazingly ready with the crews needed handle the aftermath of this horrible and terrible disaster.

    5. There was a 30 hour power down of the twin towers prior to the attack, during which a unidentified crew was allowed into the buildings for an extended period of time, unsupervised and unrecorded. Now my opponent has made the case that during this power down the explosives would have had to been brought up the stairwells into the building. However elevators in buildings can run independently with the main power off to a building with the aide of backup power as each building was equipped with. Huge diesel generators located in the buildings facilitate the operations of elevators in the event of a power outage. So the possibility that these crews could have brought up the large amounts of explosives needed to wire these buildings to blow.

    So without the evidence to point towards the attacks themselves to be the cause of the complete collapse of these three buildings we are left with few other options then to pin the blame of the catastrophe to a controlled demolition. The neatness of the collapse, the exact same pattern of collapse in the twin towers, and the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 show that the similar patterns show that these were indeed planned events. The fact that the only buildings that were destroyed on that day were buildings in the world trade center complex even though that some buildings surrounding the towers were closer than WTC 7 yet these buildings are still standing, occupied and active.

    And finally I would like to thank once again my opponent Damocles for his great insight into this debate. I hope that those that read this look into September 11 with a refreshed outlook and not buy into any story without researching the facts themselves. It was only through the points brought forth by my opponent that made it necessary for me to bring what I could to this debate.

    Thank you,
    What U KNO



    posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 06:20 AM
    link   
    whatukno, Damocles, Great Job! I do not envy the position I am about to put our judges in.

    This thread is now closed until I announce the results of the judges.

    Good Luck!

    Stay Tuned...



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:25 PM
    link   
    I've just received word from our judges that after much deliberation, a decision has finally been made. Countless compliments have been made in regards to this debate and the two members who took part, and I second with a sincere round of applause. Both of you should be proud of your work here.

    The events of September 11th, 2001 are something that has divided a country. While some of us point the fingers within, others point the fingers to terrorist organizations. The theme of this subject was to discuss certain aspects of this day, and regardless of what our opinion is, nobody could read this debate without learning a thing or two. For that, I thank the two of you.

    Now let's get to what the judges had to say.

     

    Message From The Judges

    I read it from start to finish, and this was a fantastic debate. Both Damocles and Whatukno demonstrated a level of courtesy and professionalism that I rarely see in any discourse, and their respect for each other's work was obvious. Both contestants gave well supported, lucid arguments that leave the reader with much more to think about than when they began. However, this being a debate, a clear winner must be chosen.

    In my opinion, Damocles demonstrated the superior argument for the case that the collapse of the WTC towers was not due to high explosives. He gives a great deal of forensic testimony and brings a level of professional experience to the debate that could not be matched by speculation. And that is perhaps the core of the win. He gives solid facts, verifiable numbers, expert testimony, timetables, and organizes them all into a very conclusive case that the idea that the WTC collapse was due to high explosives is possible, it is simply too implausible, impractical, and uncontainable to be the case.

    Whatukno gives an extremely good map of plausible motive, as well as driving home the fact that it was one of the oddest collapses in known history. He offers eyewitness testimony and an excellent series of speculative lines from Point A to Point B, but at the end of the debate, eyewitness testimony and speculation simply do not hold up as well in court as fact, evidence, and lack thereof.

    Whatukno definitely leaves me wanting to know more about the 9/11 attacks, and I am left with the feeling that there were forces beyond that of just a plane involved in the collapse. However, Damocles did an even better job of convincing me that this additional force would not have been a preplanned detonation of high explosives.

     


    Above is a summary of what our judges had to say. It was unanimous that Damocles won this debate, but each judge felt that it was very, very close. Each judge had said that they felt the debate was very close, and if they had to pick a winner, they felt that Damocles put forth a better argument. This is not to undermine Damocles' win in any way, shape, or form, it is just so both of you guys can understand how ridiculously close this debate was.

    I pulled in a few extra judges on this one, just to be certain. Although it was unanimous, it was very close.

    Both of you have been awarded with a substantial amount of points, just as a little gratitude from ATS.

    We hope to see you guys back here sometime soon.

    With that, this debate is now open to any "Fighter" who wishes to comment.



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:52 PM
    link   
    Fantastic Debate you two!!!!

    I for one was educated in many areas I had not thought of prior to this debate.

    OUTSTANDING

    Semper



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:06 PM
    link   
    Congratulations Damocles
    well deserved win!
    It was an absolute pleasure to debate you on this subject and you did make excellent points.

    I feel no regret for loosing this because of the great way you presented your case and I once again would like to thank you for a great debate.



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:09 PM
    link   
    Nice job guys




    Congratulations Damocles



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:28 PM
    link   
    wow, its been days since we concluded and i still feel a certain level of "brain fry" from the whole thing.

    since the first time i joined a discussion on the topic in the general forums, my opinions, while open minded, have pretty much remainen unchanged.

    my debate partner is among the first to not only challenge those opinions, but to challenge me to present those opinions and back them up as rigorously as i found myself doing.

    but the real elegance to me was that, WUK managed to challenge me in a way that not only did i really stop to think about his presentation, i ended up liking the guy. the manner in which he conducted himself throughout this debate was beyond reproach. for that he has my freindship and my respect (because they are not always mutually inclusive)

    but, beyond anything else, i think that WUK and i may have set an example for others in this debate. it IS possible to disagree on such a volatile issue and still conduct yourself as a gentleman.

    so, before i go off and get all long winded. thanks chissler, the judges, but above all thanks to Whatukno for really putting together a great case and doing it with such class.

    but, for the record, had i been a judge...id have had to flip a coin lol.



    posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 06:34 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Damocles
    but, for the record, had i been a judge...id have had to flip a coin lol.


    Who says we didn't?







    top topics



     
    10

    log in

    join