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
Head-2-Head: Were Explosives Used in 9/11?, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times
Topic started on 9-4-2007 @ 09:12 AM by chissler
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!
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.
Pro - whatukno
Con - Damocles
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.
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.
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!
reply posted on 10-4-2007 @ 12:41 PM by whatukno
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.
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.
reply posted on 12-4-2007 @ 06:10 AM by Damocles
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.
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.
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.
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
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
reply posted on 12-4-2007 @ 04:33 PM by whatukno
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.
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
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]
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 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]
reply posted on 14-4-2007 @ 07:42 AM by Damocles
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
reply posted on 14-4-2007 @ 03:43 PM by whatukno
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.
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.
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”
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”
reply posted on 17-4-2007 @ 10:29 AM by whatukno
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…
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
reply posted on 19-4-2007 @ 11:15 AM by whatukno
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
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
well deserved win! 
Pages: ^^TOP^^
